`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`DECLARATION OF ARON D. ROSE, M.D.
`
`I, Aron D. Rose, M.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I am a practicing ophthalmologist and member of The Eye Care
`
`Group specializing in complex cataract surgery and glaucoma. I have privileges
`
`as an attending physician and surgeon at Yale New Haven Hospital and Saint
`
`Mary’s Hospital in Connecticut.
`
`2.
`
`In addition to my ophthalmology practice, I teach at Yale University
`
`as Associate Clinical Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual
`
`Sciences at the School of Medicine and as Associate Clinical Professor in the
`
`Graduate Entry Program in Nursing at the School of Nursing. I was also the
`
`previous Director of Residency Training in the Department of Ophthalmology
`
`and Visual Sciences at the Yale School of Medicine. I am also an Associate
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028
`
`
`
`Clinical Professor in the Department of Medical Sciences at the Frank H. Netter
`
`MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University. I am also a member of the
`
`Connecticut Glaucoma Society.
`
`3.
`
`I earned my M.D. from New York Medical College in 1985
`
`following a B.A. from Brown University in 1980.
`
`4.
`
`I have authored or co-authored 17 peer-reviewed publications, have
`
`served as an investigator in 20 studies dealing with the treatment of glaucoma
`
`and ocular hypertension, and have presented numerous lectures on these topics.
`
`5. My curriculum vitae, provided in Appendix B, contains more details
`
`on my background, experience, publications, and prior expert testimony.
`
`B. Scope of Work
`
`6.
`
`I have been retained by the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
`
`Pittman LLP (“Pillsbury Winthrop”) on behalf of Petitioners Micro Labs Limited
`
`and Micro Labs USA Inc. (together "Micro") in connection with this matter. I
`
`am being compensated at a rate of $500 per hour for my work in connection with
`
`my consultation for this declaration. My compensation is neither dependent on
`
`the substance of my testimony and opinions in this matter nor is it dependent on
`
`the outcome of this matter.
`
`7.
`
`For purposes of preparing my declaration, I have examined U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,886,035 (“the ’035 patent,” Ex. 1001) and the other prior art
`
`2
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-2
`
`
`
`materials identified below. I understand that the contents of declaration will be
`
`relied on in collaboration with a medicinal chemist to evaluate whether the
`
`subject matter claimed in the ’035 patent would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as defined below. My understanding is that my expertise
`
`will be relied on insofar as it relates to the development of prostaglandin
`
`analogues for the treatment and/or management of elevated intraocular pressure
`
`(IOP) and glaucoma for all relevant time periods including the period that is just
`
`prior to the time of the alleged invention that is the subject of the ’035 patent.
`
`8.
`
`This declaration summarizes only my current opinions, which are
`
`subject to change depending upon additional information and/or analysis. I and
`
`others either working with me or under my direction prepared the exhibits of the
`
`materials that I reviewed and relied upon in my declaration. The entirety of my
`
`declaration, including the exhibits and referenced materials, supplies the basis for
`
`my analysis and conclusions. The organizational structure of the declaration is
`
`for convenience. I reserve the right to supplement my opinions or respond as
`
`needed to opinions and assertions made by others in this matter.
`
`9.
`
`To the extent that facts and other considerations overlap, I generally
`
`discuss such issues only once for the sake of brevity. Neither the specific order
`
`in which each issue is addressed nor the organization of my declaration or
`
`exhibits affects the ultimate outcome of my opinions.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-3
`
`
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,886,035 (Ex. 1001)
`
`10.
`
`I have read the ’035 patent, which I have been informed allegedly
`
`covers the commercially-available product ZIOPTAN.® I am aware that
`
`ZIOPTAN® is an ophthalmic solution containing tafluprost marketed by Oak
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Oak”).
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed and understand that Oak is the holder of the
`
`New Drug Application for ZIOPTAN® and the ’035 patent is listed in the FDA’s
`
`Electronic Orange Book in connection with this product. I understand that the
`
`’035 patent is assigned to patent owners Santen Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Santen”) and Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. (“Asahi”).
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the claims of the ’035
`
`patent are directed to fluorine-containing prostaglandin derivatives, specifically
`
`derivatives having two fluorine (F) atoms at the C-15 position, their alkyl esters,
`
`or their salts, and to medicines containing one of these compounds as an active
`
`ingredient. I also understand that the compounds covered by the ’035 patent are
`
`alleged to be useful in medicine to treat an eye disease such as glaucoma and
`
`ocular hypertension.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that Oak, Santen and Asahi have filed a lawsuit for
`
`patent infringement against Micro in connection with Micro’s filing of
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 209051 that seeks FDA approval to
`
`4
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-4
`
`
`
`commercially market a generic tafluprost product. I understand that this lawsuit
`
`has been stylized 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).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Legal Understanding
`
`14. My opinions as stated herein are predicated on my knowledge and
`
`expertise.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that each of the claims of the ’035 patent
`
`define the scope of the invention that is entitled to protection. I understand that
`
`in assessing the claims of the ’035 patent for purposes of this declaration, they
`
`are to be construed with the broadest reasonable interpretation. It is also my
`
`understanding that such interpretation includes giving the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to the claim language and as informed by what I understand to be the
`
`patent specification. It is my opinion in reviewing the claims that there are no
`
`claim terms that require special interpretation beyond their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-5
`
`
`
`17.
`
`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 an objective reason for a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the
`
`references or make obvious modifications in view of them based on but not
`
`limited to (A) identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior
`
`art references; (B) combining prior art methods according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results; (C) substituting one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (D) using a known technique to improve a similar
`
`device in the same way; (E) applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (F) trying a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; or (G) 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 person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`18.
`
`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
`
`provides reason to combine or modify the prior art structures to arrive at the
`
`claimed compound. I understand that this prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`6
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-6
`
`
`
`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 the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have led that person to modify a known compound in a particular manner.
`
`19. 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 person of ordinary skill in the art to select that particular
`
`compound over others identified in the prior art. In stepping into the shoes of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, I understand that the selection of a so-called
`
`lead compound 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 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.
`
`20. Based on the above understanding, I have also been asked to
`
`consider the question of what compound a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`7
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-7
`
`
`
`would have selected as a starting point in view of the prior art materials that I
`
`have reviewed.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`21. My understanding is that the inquiry into the obviousness of the
`
`claims of the ’035 patent is based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the claimed invention. I am informed that this person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of
`
`all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity. I understand that the time period relevant to the inquiry of
`
`obviousness is the time period prior to December 26, 1996, which I understand is
`
`the earliest priority date claimed by the owners of the ’035 patent.
`
`22. Based on my education, experience and training, I am familiar with
`
`the level of skill in the art just prior to the December 26, 1996 time frame as it
`
`pertains to the subject matter of the ’035 patent. It is my opinion that this person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be 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. I believe that this
`
`8
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-8
`
`
`
`person would also have sufficient familiarity interpreting or evaluating studies
`
`that use animal models to test for IOP activity and side effects of compounds
`
`having the potential to treat glaucoma or ocular hypertension. This person also
`
`would draw upon the specialized experiences and skills of others on his team
`
`with these skills since it would be reasonable that the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would be working as part of a multi-disciplinary team with respect to the
`
`subject research.
`
`23.
`
`Insofar as the person of ordinary skill in the art defined above, I can
`
`offer the perspective of the knowledge and experience of a person that is either
`
`(1) a person of ordinary skill in the art or (2) working with a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in reviewing and evaluating efficacy screens of candidate
`
`compounds for the treatment of elevated intraocular pressure or glaucoma. I
`
`believe that such screening would include review and consideration of efficacy
`
`measurements and an understanding of undesirable side-effects including, but not
`
`limited to hyperemia and other forms of eye irritation.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`
`24.
`
`I have formulated my opinions based on my understanding of the
`
`scope of the tasks I have been given as referenced above, as well as my review of
`
`the ’035 patent and the prior art cited in Appendix A.
`
`25.
`
`The materials that I have reviewed including prior art and relied on
`
`9
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-9
`
`
`
`for this Declaration is tabulated in Appendix A.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`
`26.
`
`I set forth below in my insight and opinion as to what the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that is conducting research in the area of developing
`
`PGF2α analogues (the field encompassed by the claims of the ’035 patent) to treat
`
`ocular hypertension and glaucoma would have been aware of regarding the
`
`following topics: (1) glaucoma and ocular hypertension; (2) prostaglandin-based
`
`medicines for treating glaucoma and ocular hypertension; (3) animal models use
`
`to evaluate IOP-reducing activity and hyperemia; (4) hyperemia or redness in the
`
`eye caused by prostaglandin-based medicines; and (5) PGF2α analogue receptors
`
`in the eye and their proposed effect on uveoslceral outflow.
`
`27. Unless otherwise specifically noted, my discussion of the
`
`background and state of the prior art is based on the perspective of what was
`
`known at the time of the alleged invention of the ’035 patent. Again, I
`
`understand from counsel that the relevant time period is just prior to December
`
`26, 1996.
`
`A. Ocular Hypertension and Glaucoma
`
`28. Ocular hypertension usually refers to any situation in which the
`
`pressure inside the eye (intraocular pressure or IOP) is higher than normal. With
`
`ocular hypertension, the front of the eye does not drain fluid properly, causing
`
`10
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-10
`
`
`
`eye pressure to increase because fluid builds up in the front part of the eye.
`
`Elevated intraocular pressure is a concern because people with ocular
`
`hypertension can develop glaucoma, which is a disease where eye pressure
`
`damages the optic nerve, causing vision loss. The pathophysiology of ocular
`
`hypertension and glaucoma was highly researched as of December 26, 1996.
`
`29. Ocular hypertension is not the same as glaucoma. With ocular
`
`hypertension, the optic nerve looks normal and there are no signs of vision loss.
`
`People with ocular hypertension, however, should be observed more closely
`
`because the existence of ocular hypertension creates an increased risk for the
`
`onset of glaucoma. Patients with ocular hypertension are often considered
`
`“glaucoma suspects” meaning that they may develop glaucoma because of their
`
`elevated intraocular pressure. Glaucoma is a disease that is one of the leading
`
`causes of blindness for many people over 60 years old, as intraocular pressure
`
`slowly rises with increasing age.
`
`30.
`
`Eye pressure is measured in millimeters of mercury (mm Hg).
`
`Normal eye pressure ranges from 12-22 mm Hg. Ocular hypertension is any
`
`pressure greater than 22mm Hg. Elevated intraocular pressure is caused by the
`
`imbalance in the relationship between production and drainage of fluid in the
`
`eye. Elevated intraocular pressure can be caused by improperly functioning
`
`drainage channels or more fluid being produced in the eye than normal.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-11
`
`
`
`31.
`
`The most common type of glaucoma is known as primary open-
`
`angle glaucoma, where the drainage structures of the eye appears normal but the
`
`pressure inside the eye is too high and a characteristic pattern of progressive
`
`damage to the optic nerve results.
`
`
`Treatment of Ocular Hypertension or Glaucoma with
`Prostaglandins
`
`B.
`
`32. Ocular hypertension and glaucoma treatments include surgical
`
`procedures, laser treatments, implantation of drainage devices and application of
`
`pharmacological drugs (i.e., medicine).
`
`33.
`
`In terms of medicine, ocular hypertension and glaucoma are often
`
`controlled with eye drop medication that reduces IOP. Eye drop medication
`
`helps to drain excessive eye fluid and/or decreases the amount of fluid made by
`
`the eye. Medicines are classified by their active ingredient and include:
`
`prostaglandin analogues, beta blockers, alpha agonists and carbonic anhydrase
`
`inhibitors. Prostaglandins and their analogues reduce IOP primarily by
`
`increasing the outflow of intraocular fluid from the eye.
`
`34.
`
`Prior to December 26, 1996, naturally-occurring prostaglandin F2α
`
`known in short form as PGF2α had long been known to effect reduction of
`
`intraocular pressure. Many research groups were investigating PGF2α analogues
`
`for use in treating ocular hypertension and glaucoma.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-12
`
`
`
`35.
`
`The characterization of the distribution of prostaglandin receptors in
`
`the eye, specifically those that might be involved in modulating intraocular
`
`pressure was well-known prior to December 26, 1996.1 2 3
`
`36.
`
`The PGF2α analogue latanoprost emerged as an early success in the
`
`treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Latanoprost was introduced in
`
`1996 in the United States and Europe. In June 1996, the United States FDA
`
`approved an ophthalmic solution containing latanoprost that is marketed as
`
`XALATAN®. (Ex. 1016).
`
`37.
`
`I am aware from my review of EP 0 639 563 to Klimko et al.
`
`
`1 Lee, P.Y. et al., “The effect of prostaglandin F2 alpha on intraocular pressure in
`
`normotensive human subjects,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Oct. 29(10):1474–
`
`1477 (1988) (Ex. 1018).
`
`2 Camras, C.B. et al., “Maintained reduction of intraocular pressure by
`
`prostaglandin F2 alpha-1-isopropyl ester applied in multiple doses in ocular
`
`hypertensive and glaucoma patients,” Ophthalmology Sep. 96(9):1329–1337
`
`(1989) (Ex. 1019).
`
`3 Nilsson, S.F. et al., “Increased uveoscleral outflow as a possible mechanism of
`
`ocular hypotension caused by prostaglandin F2 alpha-1-isopropylester in the
`
`cynomolgus monkey,” Exp. Eye Res. May 48(5):707–716 (1989) (Ex.1020).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-13
`
`
`
`(“Klimko,” Ex. 1003), that is discussed in detail further below, compounds that
`
`were under investigation prior to December 26, 1996 included PGF2α analogues
`
`structurally similar to latanoprost that exhibited greater IOP-reducing activity
`
`than latanoprost when tested in the eyes of cynolmogous monkeys. These
`
`compounds also exhibited some potential for inducing hyperemia when tested in
`
`guinea pigs.
`
`38. Many researchers studying the IOP-reducing activity of these PGF2α
`
`analogues also noted their potential for inducing hyperemia. Other undesirable
`
`side-effects resulting from the administration of these analogues include eye
`
`irritation, changes in eye color and eyelid skin.
`
`
`C. Hyperemia Side Effect of Prostaglandin-Based Medicines
`
`39. At the time of the claimed invention of the ’035 patent
`
`prostaglandin-based medicines used to treat ocular hypertension or glaucoma,
`
`such as latanoprost, were known to produce certain negative side effects, most
`
`commonly hyperemia.
`
`40. Hyperemia is a condition in which redness is observed on the
`
`surface of the eye due to vasodilation (i.e., increased diameter of blood vessels).
`
`Prior to December 26, 1996, hyperemia was already a well-characterized side
`
`effect of certain drug products for the eye, including prostaglandin-based drugs.
`
`As hyperemia is associated with both discomfort and cosmetic concerns among
`
`14
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-14
`
`
`
`patients, it is commonly associated with reduced compliance, and thus highly
`
`undesirable.
`D. Animal Models for Testing IOP-Reducing Activity and
`Hyperemia Resulting from the Use of Prostaglandins and their
`Analogues
`
`41.
`
`Prior to December 26, 1996, animal models were regularly used in
`
`order to study glaucoma, evaluate the potential of candidate compounds to treat
`
`elevated intraocular pressure, and study the side effects of administering such
`
`compounds.4 5
`
`42.
`
`The cynomolgus monkey model is one such standard model
`
`employed to assess drug candidates for treatment of elevated intraocular pressure
`
`and glaucoma. The benefit and advantage of using a cynomolgus monkey animal
`
`model are twofold: retinal and optic nerve anatomy are very similar to humans,
`
`and the physiological characteristics of the cynomolgus monkey are very close to
`
`the human eye. This animal model is a model with which I have great
`
`
`4 Pederson, J.E. et al., “Laser-induced primate glaucoma. I. Progression of
`
`cupping,” Arch. Ophthalmol. Nov. 102(11):1689-92 (1984) (Ex. 1021).
`
` 5
`
` Radius, R.L. et al., “Laser-induced primate glaucoma. II. Histopathology,” Arch.
`
`Ophthalmol. Nov. 102(11):1693-8 (1984) (Ex. 1022).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-15
`
`
`
`familiarity, as I co-authored one of the original articles describing its usefulness.6
`
`This cynomolgus monkey model was also used in the Klimko (Ex. 1003) prior
`
`art reference detailed below in my declaration.
`
`43. Another animal model regularly used prior to December 26, 1996
`
`when studying PGF2α side-effects such as hyperemia was the guinea pig model.7
`
`It is chosen as it exhibits primate-like characteristics, felt especially useful in
`
`assessing similar side effects as humans.
`
`44. A drug compound candidate that displays hyperemia would not be
`
`abandoned but suggests that structural modification would be needed to alleviate
`
`this side effect.
`
`V.
`
`SELECTION OF A LEAD COMPOUND IN VIEW OF PRIOR ART
`
`EP 0 639 563 A2 (“Klimko,” Ex. 1003)
`
`A.
`
`45.
`
`I have reviewed EP 0 639 563 A2 to Klimko et al. (“Klimko”),
`
`
`6 Lee, P.Y. et al., “Pharmacological testing in the laser-induced monkey glaucoma
`
`model,” Curr. Eye Res. Jul. 4(7):775-81 (1985) (Ex. 1023).
`
` 7
`
` Bito, L.Z. “Species differences in the responses of the eye to irritation and
`
`trauma: a hypothesis of divergence in ocular defense mechanisms, and the choice
`
`of experimental animals for eye research,” Exp. Eye Res. Dec. 39(6):807-29 (1984)
`
`(Ex. 1024).
`
`16
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-16
`
`
`
`which was published on February 22, 1995. Klimko is generally directed to the
`
`use of prostaglandin analogues, and their pharmaceutically acceptable salts and
`
`esters, to reduce elevated IOP. (Id., p. 2, ll. 3-8).
`
`46. Klimko discloses four compounds designated as compounds A-D
`
`that are compared to the reference standard compound latanoprost, which is
`
`identified as compound E. (Id., p. 15, l. 47 – p. 15, l. 50). As discussed
`
`previously in paragraph 36, latanoprost was approved as a treatment for
`
`glaucoma and ocular hypertension in 1996 in the United States. (Ex. 1016).
`
`47. Klimko discloses 15-hydroxy prostaglandin analogues A, B, C and
`
`D (below) in Table 2. (Ex. 1003, p. 15, Table 2). Each of these prostaglandin
`
`analogues retains the 15-postion hydroxyl (—OH) group of naturally occurring
`
`PGF2α.
`
`48. Compound A is the isopropyl ester of cloprostenol.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-17
`
`
`
`Compound A
`
`49. Compound B is the isopropyl ester of fluprostenol that differs from
`
`compound A by replacement of the chlorine (Cl) atom with a trifluoromethyl
`
`(CF3) group.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Compound B
`
`50. Compound C, shown below, differs from Compound A by
`
`replacement of the chlorine (Cl) atom with a hydrogen (H) atom.
`
`
`
`
`
`Compound C
`
`51. Compound D,shown below, differs from compound C by
`
`replacement of the omega side-chain oxygen atom of a phenoxy group with a
`
`18
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-18
`
`
`
`methylene (-CH2-) group.
`
`
`
`
`
`Compound D
`
`(See id., p. 15, Table 2).
`
`52. Klimko describes in Example 6 a study of the IOP-reducing effect
`
`of compounds A through E in cynomolgus monkeys trained to sit in restraint
`
`chairs and conditioned to accept experimental procedures without the need for
`
`chemical restraint. (Id., p. 18, ll. 10-17). The right eyes of the cynomolgus
`
`monkeys were first lasered to induce ocular hypertension, and then administered
`
`a five-dose treatment of formulations of compounds A through E to the lasered
`
`right eyes of the cynomolgus monkeys. (Id.). Klimko states that the test protocol
`
`included a five dose treatment regimen because of the typical delayed response to
`
`prostaglandins. (Id.). Klimko describes measuring the level of IOP by using a
`
`pneumatonometer after light corneal anesthesia with dilute proparacaine. (Id.).
`
`53. Klimko describes how baseline IOP values were initially measured
`
`prior to treatment with the test formulation. (Id., p. 18, ll. 18-20). IOP values
`
`19
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-19
`
`
`
`were then measured at 1 to 7 hours after the first dose, 16 hours after the fourth
`
`dose, and 1to 4 hours after the fifth dose. (Id.). The same amount (0.3 µg per
`
`dose) of each of compounds A through E were compared for IOP reduction. (Id.,
`
`p. 18, ll. 22-23). Table 4 in Klimko (reproduced below, along with graphical
`
`depiction in Figure 2) tabulates the results of “Percent IOP Reduction” for each
`
`of compounds A through E at 16 hours after the fourth dose (16/4), at 2 hours
`
`after the fifth dose (2/5), at 4 hours after the fifth dose (4/5) and at six hours after
`
`the fifth dose (6/5). (Id., p. 18, Table 4 and P. 30, Figure 2).
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54. Although I no longer perform animal model studies, I am very
`
`familiar with such studies, particularly those involving cynomolgus monkeys as
`
`they fall within the scope of my prior research experience. I am therefore
`
`accustomed to evaluating the resulting data of studies like those in Table 4 of
`
`Klimko (reproduced above) that screen for IOP-reducing effect. (Id.).
`
`55.
`
`Table 4 and Figure 2 above indicate significant IOP-reducing
`
`activity for compounds A through D, relative to the latanoprost reference
`
`compound E that was already on the market prior to December 26, 1996. The
`
`data presented in Klimko show that all four candidates A through D perform
`
`better at reducing IOP than latanoprost reference compound E.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-21
`
`
`
`56.
`
`In my opinion, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the claimed invention would have believed that compound C had the greatest
`
`IOP-reducing potential because it appears to have a more prolonged effect when
`
`compared to the other compounds following administration of the fifth dose at
`
`which time the IOP is measured every two hours. (See id., p. 18, Table 4 and p.
`
`30, Figure 2). Of the candidate compounds A through D, compound C is the
`
`only compound that does not begin to experience diminished IOP-reducing
`
`potential between hours 4 and 6. (Id.).
`
`57.
`
`In addition, compounds A and B show about a greater than one hour
`
`delay in reaching the IOP-reducing efficacy of Compound C at the time of the
`
`fifth dosing. (Id.). Moreover, between hours 4 and 6, their IOP-reducing activity
`
`of compounds A and B already begins to diminish. (Id.). Compound C shows a
`
`relatively steady efficacy following the fifth dosing, and the percentage of IOP
`
`reduction drops down between hour 4 and 6 to nominally the same level as that
`
`following the fourth dose. (Id.). Although compound D shows the highest IOP-
`
`reducing potential at hours 2 and 4, compound D demonstrates a substantial
`
`reduction in IOP-reducing effect from 4 to 6 hours following the fifth dose. (Id.).
`
`58.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior in view of
`
`Klimko would also have assessed compound C as having one of the greatest IOP-
`
`reducing potential because it shows the greatest percent IOP reduction following
`
`22
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-22
`
`
`
`administration of 4 of the 5 doses. (Id.). Specifically, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art reviewing the data in Table 4 would have noted that compound C had
`
`the greatest percent IOP reduction with 30.2% measured 16 hours after
`
`administration of the fourth dose. (Id.). Compound C also possessed superior
`
`IOP-reducing effect when compared to latanoprost (compound E) that was
`
`already available in the market prior to December 26, 1996. (Id.).
`
`59.
`
`In my opinion, compound C would be a strong lead compound
`
`candidate for further investigation based on its initial percent IOP reduction at
`
`16/4 as well as its prolonged effect evidenced by the increase in Percent IOP
`
`Reduction from 4/5 to 6/5. (See id.). It is clear to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art from Figure 2 that compound C performs differently from the other
`
`compounds in that it exhibits a longer-lasting effect than the other compounds.
`
`(Id., p. 30, Figure 2).
`
`60. Klimko also presents data from hyperemia studies in Example 5 for
`
`compounds A through E. (Id., pp. 16-18). Compounds A through E all exhibit
`
`hyperemia, in the guinea pig model. (Id.). Klimko describes that the objective of
`
`the guinea pig conjunctival hyperemia model is to provide a primary screening
`
`indication for the potential for inducing conjunctival hyperemia in humans.
`
`61. Klimko describes that the guinea pigs were maintained in their
`
`cages during the study and removed only for scoring and dosing. (Id., p. 16, l. 6).
`
`23
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-23
`
`
`
`Klimko further describes that the guinea pig eyes were evaluated using a
`
`magnifying lens with fluorescent illumination and scores for conjunctival
`
`hyperemia were recorded for upper bulbar conjunctiva according to the following
`
`criteria:
`
`
`
`(Id., p. 16, ll. 6-20).
`
`62.
`
`I am familiar with analyzing the data from guinea pigs that are used
`
`to test for hyperemia, such as that shown below in Table 3 of Klimko. I agree
`
`with the findings in Klimko that compound C produces more hyperemia than
`
`compound D and compound D in turn produces more hyperemia than compound
`
`E. (Id., p. 18, ll. 1-6). I also agree that the hyperemia produced by compound A
`
`and compound B appears to be intermediate between that of compounds D and E.
`
`(Id.).
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`63.
`
`In my opinion, although compound C produces more hyperemia in
`
`guinea pigs, a person of ordinary skill in the art would still look to it as a
`
`potential lead compound because a) it demonstrates lasting effectiveness at 6
`
`hours after the fifth dose in contrast to compounds A, B, and D, which
`
`demonstrate reduced effectiveness from 4 to 6 hours after the fifth dose and b) it
`
`demonstrates one of the largest reductions in intraocular pressure after four doses
`
`in the monkey model. In addition, compound C also possessed superior IOP-
`
`reducing effect when compared to a commercially available compound that was
`
`latanoprost (compound E).
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1028-25
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,292,754 (“Kishi,” Ex. 1005)
`
`64. United States Patent No. 5,292,754, entitled “Treatment for
`
`Hypertension or Glaucoma in Eyes” with first named inventor Morio Kishi
`
`issued on March 8, 1994 (“Kishi”).
`
`65. Kishi discloses 15-deoxyprostaglandin derivatives as agents for
`
`reducing IOP and pharmaceutical formulations containing such derivatives. (Ex.
`
`1005, col. 41, l. 60-col. 43, l. 36).
`
`66. Kishi teaches that removing the C-15 hydroxyl group from the
`
`compounds taught by Klimko leads to compounds that do not produce side
`
`effects such as conjunctival hyperemia:
`
`
`
`[D]erivatives of conventional prostaglandins which are
`derived
`from said conventional prostaglandins by
`deleting the hydroxy group at 15-position are more
`stable, particularly in liquid phase, than the conventional
`prostaglandins, and that they show the intraocular
`pressure-reducing activity. . . In particular, the
`compounds of the invention as described above have a
`signifi