`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213
`
`Filed: November 17, 1993
`
`Issued: June 18, 2002
`
`Inventor(s): Paul J. Carter, Leonard G. Presta
`
`Assignee: Genentech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: Method for making humanized antibodies Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY BUSS
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND ................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Education and Experience ..................................................................... 1
`
`Bases for Opinions and Materials Considered ...................................... 5
`
`Scope of Work ....................................................................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 6
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 11
`
`V.
`
`THE ’213 PATENT (EX. 1501) .................................................................... 14
`
`VI. STATE OF THE ART OF MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY
`THERAPIES AND CANCER ....................................................................... 14
`
`Early Antibody Therapy ...................................................................... 14
`
`Efforts to Reduce Immunogenicity—Chimerization and
`Humanization ...................................................................................... 18
`
`Breast Cancer and HER-2 ................................................................... 24
`
`Identification and Characterization of 4D5, a Potential
`Therapeutic Mouse Monoclonal Antibody to HER-2/neu .................. 30
`
`Humanization of 4D5 to Enable Therapeutic Use .............................. 37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`i
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1. My name is Timothy Buss I have been retained by counsel for Pfizer,
`
`Inc. (“Pfizer”). I understand that Pfizer intends to file petitions for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 (“the ’213 patent”) (Ex. 1501), which is
`
`assigned to Genentech, Inc. I also understand that Pfizer will request that the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office cancel certain claims of the ’213 patent
`
`as unpatentable in their petitions. I submit this expert declaration in support of
`
`Pfizer’s petitions.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`A. Education and Experience
`2.
`I am currently an independent consultant in the antibody engineering
`
`field. As a consultant, I help clients with a variety antibody discovery and
`
`development issues. In particular, I advise clients on choosing the best methods to
`
`immunize and screen monoclonal antibodies, humanize antibodies by CDR
`
`grafting onto human frameworks and develop methods for expression and
`
`purification of recombinant proteins. At the present time, I am working with two
`
`nonprofit research organizations and a gene therapy company on issues relating to
`
`antibody generation, engineering, affinity maturation and phage display.
`
`3.
`
`In all, I have more than 25 years of practical and research experience
`
`specializing in antibody design, humanization, and expression. My curriculum
`
`vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I received my Higher National Certificate (“HNC”) in applied biology
`
`from Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology (now part of Anglia Ruskin
`
`University) in the UK where I attended from 1981–86. While attending
`
`Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology, I worked as an Assistant
`
`Scientific Officer in the Director’s Group, Agricultural and Food Research Council
`
`Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research (1981–87).
`
`5.
`
`In 1987, I became a Scientific Officer at the Medical Research
`
`Council (“MRC”) Group, Department of Neuroendocrinology at the AFRC
`
`Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research. My work at the MRC
`
`included cloning, expression, and purification of proteins for polyclonal antibody
`
`production as well as associated animal work.
`
`6.
`
`In 1991, I became a Higher Scientific Officer at the Cambridge Centre
`
`for Protein Engineering, Laboratory of Molecular Biology. There, I worked under
`
`Dr. Sir Gregory Winter and focused on, among other things, expression and
`
`purification of monoclonal and recombinant humanized antibodies and generation
`
`of vectors for antibody phage display. In 1993, I moved to the Fred Hutchinson
`
`Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA. My work there included cloning,
`
`expression, and purification of humanized antibodies as well as the development of
`
`protocols for the expression and purification of recombinant proteins.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`In 2002, I moved to the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, where my
`
`work involved the cloning and expression of monoclonal antibodies; the design,
`
`construction, and expression of murine, chimeric, and humanized antibodies for
`
`tumor targeting projects; and the generation of phage antibody libraries from
`
`immunized mice to generate novel binders to targets on vascular endothelial cells.
`
`8.
`
`In 2008, I became a Senior Scientist at Ambrx, Inc. In that position, I
`
`was responsible for antibody generation and development, including the design and
`
`generation of recombinant proteins and chimeric and humanized antibodies. I also
`
`supervised development from initial antigen design through preclinical testing of
`
`the humanized antibody lead candidate, generated monoclonal antibodies for
`
`internal projects, designed and produced bispecific and multifunctional antibodies
`
`and antibody-based proteins, and made Fc modifications to alter effector functions.
`
`I was also project leader on several collaborations with large pharmaceutical
`
`companies. I remained at Ambrx, Inc. until 2015.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to my full time experience described above, I have also
`
`been involved with a number of consulting projects. From August 2015 to March
`
`2016, I worked as a Research Scientist and Consultant at the California Institute
`
`for Biomedical Research. In this position, I worked to troubleshoot antibody
`
`related projects and advise on antibody research, humanization, design, expression,
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`and purification. In addition, as discussed above in ¶ 2, I am currently an
`
`independent consultant in the antibody engineering field.
`
`10.
`
`In connection with my research activities, I have published several
`
`articles on antibody design, engineering, and use. In 1998, I published an article on
`
`conformational changes in the complementarity determining regions induced by
`
`engineering these segments within human framework regions. See Exhibit A at 4
`
`(Publications). In 2001, I published an article on the effects of framework
`
`mutations at Residues 27 and 71 on the CDRs of humanized antibodies. See id. In
`
`addition, I have published articles on the use of human germline framework
`
`regions for the humanization of murine antibodies and the preparation of
`
`humanized antibodies with reduced immunogenicity by using human genomic V
`
`gene framework sequences whose CDR’s canonical class match closest to the
`
`canonical class of murine antibodies. See id. Finally, I have published on the use of
`
`engineered antibodies designed to deliver therapeutic agents to specific tissues and
`
`the engineering of a new antibody, J120, and expression and sequence of its
`
`antigen, CD34. See id.
`
`11.
`
`I am also a named inventor on several patents and patent applications
`
`in the antibody engineering field. See id. at 5 (“Patents”).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`Bases for Opinions and Materials Considered
`12. Exhibit B includes a list of the materials I considered, in addition to
`
`my experience, education, and training, in providing the opinions contained herein.
`
`13.
`
`I understand a third-party, Mylan, previously filed IPR petitions
`
`challenging claims of the ’213 patent. I have reviewed and considered Mylan’s IPR
`
`petitions and the declarations filed in support of Mylan’s IPR petitions. Applying
`
`my independent judgement and expertise, after having independently reviewed and
`
`analyzed all of the materials in Mylan expert Dr. Edward Ball’s materials
`
`considered lists, and after having done the additional work of fact checking and
`
`considering whether potential counterarguments may exist, I have come to the
`
`same conclusions as Dr. Ball and I agree with the analysis in his declaration as set
`
`forth below. Readers of this declaration may note the language and organization is
`
`similar to that of Dr. Ball’s declaration because it did not seem a necessary
`
`expenditure of resources to rewrite the material which I independently confirmed
`
`as acceptable and correct. The opinions in this declaration should be considered
`
`mine.
`
`C.
`14.
`
`Scope of Work
`
`I have been retained by Pfizer as a technical expert in this matter to
`
`provide various opinions regarding the ’213 patent. I receive $300 per hour for my
`
`services. No part of my compensation is dependent upon my opinions given or the
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`outcome of this case. I do not have any other current or past affiliation as an expert
`
`witness or consultant with Pfizer. I do not have any current or past affiliation with
`
`Genentech, Inc., or any of the named inventors on the ’213 patent.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`15. To summarize, for the reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the power and potential of
`
`monoclonal antibodies (MAbs or MoAbs) as therapies for a number of diseases
`
`including breast cancer while acknowledging the limitation of their use due to
`
`immunogenic effects upon repeated administration of mouse monoclonal
`
`antibodies. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`humanization of mouse monoclonal antibodies as developed by Queen et al., A
`
`Humanized antibody that binds to the interleukin 2 receptor, 86 PROC. NAT’L
`
`ACAD. SCI. USA 10029–33 (1989) (“Queen 1989”) (Ex. 1534) and others would
`
`overcome this limitation. With respect to cancer, one skilled in the art would have
`
`identified HER-2/neu as a target for breast cancer therapy based on the prevalence
`
`of this gene in a significant number of human breast cancer and other types of
`
`cancers as well as the overexpression of HER-2/neu to cause cell transformation
`
`and tumorigenesis.
`
`16. Accordingly, it is my opinion that because of the well-documented
`
`pre-1991 reports of excellent specificity and potent anti-proliferative and cytotoxic
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`effects of the mouse monoclonal 4D5 antibody directed to HER-2/neu as presented
`
`in Hudziak et al., p185HER2 Monoclonal Antibody Has Antiproliferative Effects In
`
`Vitro and Sensitizes Human Breast Tumor Cells to Tumor Necrosis Factor, 9(3)
`
`MOLECULAR CELLULAR BIOLOGY 1165 (1989) (“Hudziak 1989”) (Ex. 1521), a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have identified 4D5 as a promising
`
`candidate for humanization, at least as early as March 1989. After singling out 4D5
`
`from a panel of monoclonal antibodies, Hudziak 1989 (Ex. 1521) identified the
`
`4D5 antibody as showing good specificity toward the HER-2 receptor extracellular
`
`domain and did not cross-react or bind to the EGF receptor (HER-1). The 4D5
`
`antibody also demonstrated growth inhibitory and anti-proliferative effects on
`
`HER-2 positive SK-BR-3 breast cancer cells. As Hudziak 1989 (Ex. 1521) noted,
`
`the 4D5 antibody had the best effect of the tested anti-HER-2 antibodies in
`
`inhibiting the growth of these cells leading the authors to conclude that
`
`“[m]aximum inhibition was obtained with monoclonal antibody 4D5 which
`
`inhibited cellular proliferation by 56%.” Id. at 12. The 4D5 antibody was also
`
`shown to downregulate p185HER2 by allowing the protein to be degraded more
`
`quickly in the cell. Finally, the 4D5 antibody sensitized HER-2 positive breast
`
`cancer cells to TNF-alpha mediated cytotoxicity.
`
`17. Furthermore, Shepard et al., Monoclonal Antibody Therapy of Human
`
`Cancer: Taking the HER2 Protooncogene to the Clinic, 11(3) J. CLINICAL
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`IMMUNOLOGY, 117 (1991) (Ex. 1548) reported that a human tumor xenograft
`
`model was used to “support[] the application of muMAb 4D5 to human cancer
`
`therapy” and “its ability to inhibit the growth of tumor cells overexpressing
`
`p185HER2 in vivo.” Id. at 8. In tumor bearing athymic mice, the authors
`
`administered either the 4D5 antibody, a control antibody 5B6, or PBS and
`
`observed that “[o]n day 20, average tumor weights of animals receiving muMAb
`
`4D5 were significantly less than those receiving the same dose of the control
`
`antibody muMAb 5B6.” Id. at 9. These observations allow Shepard et al. to
`
`conclude that “[t]he muMAb 4D5 also serves as a template for antibody
`
`engineering efforts to construct humanized versions more suitable for chronic
`
`therapy or other molecules which may be directly cytotoxic for tumor cells
`
`overexpressing the HER2 protooncogene.” Id. at 12.
`
`18. Thus in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`acknowledged and recognized the above-described promising properties of the
`
`mouse monoclonal antibody 4D5 in vitro and in vivo and have strong motivation to
`
`select this antibody as a prime candidate for further development as a therapy for
`
`breast cancer. It then follows, that one of ordinary skill in the art would logically
`
`proceed to develop the monoclonal 4D5 antibody as a breast cancer therapeutic via
`
`well-established humanization
`
`techniques,
`
`thereby reducing
`
`the antibody’s
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`immunogenicity and restoring antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity
`
`(ADCC) and effector cell binding.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`19.
`In preparing and forming my opinions set forth in this declaration, I
`
`have been informed regarding the relevant legal principles. I have used my
`
`understanding of those principles in forming my opinions. My understanding of
`
`those principles is summarized below.
`
`20.
`
`I understand a patent has three primary parts: the specification, the
`
`drawings, and the claims. The specification consists of a written description of the
`
`invention and must provide a sufficient description to enable one skilled in the art
`
`to practice the invention. The drawings illustrate the invention. The claims appear
`
`at the end of the specification as numbered paragraphs. I am told the claims define
`
`the metes and bounds of the property right conveyed by the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand claims can be independent or dependent. Dependent
`
`claims refer back to and incorporate at least one other claim. Dependent claims
`
`include all the limitations of any claims incorporated by reference into the
`
`dependent claim.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I have also been told that claims should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.1
`
`23.
`
`I understand prior art to the ’213 patent includes patents, printed
`
`publications and products in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the
`
`’213 patent.
`
`24.
`
`I am told a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious. I understand
`
`anticipation requires that every element and limitation of the claim was previously
`
`described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, before the
`
`date of the alleged invention.
`
`25. To determine whether a claim is obvious, I understand the scope and
`
`content of the prior art are to be determined, differences between the prior art and
`
`the claims at issue are to be ascertained, and the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art resolved. I also understand that secondary considerations such as
`
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., may have
`
`some relevancy to whether or not the claim is obvious or nonobvious. I understand
`
`that obviousness is assessed at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`1 I have been asked to assume the priority date of the ’213 patent (June 14, 1991)
`
`is the date of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I am also informed that when there is some recognized reason to solve
`
`a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable and known
`
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known
`
`options within his or her technical grasp. If such an approach leads to expected
`
`success, it is likely not the product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense. In such a circumstance, when a patent simply arranges old elements with
`
`each performing its known function and yields no more than what one would
`
`expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`27.
`
`I have been
`
`told
`
`that Pfizer bears
`
`the burden of proving
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I am informed that this
`
`preponderance of the evidence standard means that Pfizer must show that
`
`unpatentability is more probable than not. I have taken these principles into
`
`account when forming my opinions in this case.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`28.
`I have been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis is to be
`
`conducted from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “person of
`
`ordinary skill”) at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`29.
`
`I have also been informed by counsel that in defining a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art the following factors may be considered: (1) the
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`educational level of the inventor;2 (2) the type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`(3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; and (5) sophistication of the technology and educational level of active
`
`workers in the field.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that Dr. Jefferson Foote is also submitting a declaration
`
`in connection with Pfizer’s IPR petitions. I have spoken with Dr. Foote and I
`
`understand that he has expressed an opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art related to the ’213 patent would be an individual that developed protein
`
`therapeutics. This person would have a Ph.D. or equivalent (for example,
`
`knowledge gained through 4–5 years of work experience) in molecular biology,
`
`immunology, biochemistry or a closely related field, and may work as a member of
`
`a team. A team member or advisor or consultant would have an M.D. with clinical
`
`experience in the disease or disease area (e.g., oncology) for which the antibody
`
`development is intended.
`
`
`2 A review of To Build a Better Mousetrap, Use Human Parts, Journal of the
`
`National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 1, January 7, 1998 (Ex. 1685) suggests
`
`named inventors Paul Carter and Leonard Presta both held Ph.D.s and were
`
`working at Genentech at the time of the alleged invention. See Ex. 1685 at 9.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`31. For example, as a Ph.D. or equivalent the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have the educational background above with experience in common
`
`laboratory techniques in molecular biology, such as those in the popular how-to
`
`handbook, “Molecular Cloning Techniques: A Laboratory Manual”, by Sambrook
`
`and Fritsch, 1989 (Ex. 1597). This experience is consistent with the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art of protein engineering, which would have included
`
`performing three-dimensional computer modeling of protein structures, domain
`
`and sequence manipulation and swapping, construction and expression of
`
`recombinant proteins, antibody binding assays (for specificity and affinity),
`
`immunogenicity testing and the like. The experience may come from the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art’s own experience, or may come through research or work
`
`collaborations with other
`
`individual(s) with experience
`
`in
`
`the medical,
`
`pharmaceutical or biotech industry, e.g., as members of a research team or group.
`
`32. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also be well-versed in the
`
`world-wide literature on antibody therapeutics that was available as of the ’213
`
`patent. As mentioned above, the person of ordinary skill in the art may work as
`
`part of a team or collaboration to develop a humanized monoclonal antibody for
`
`therapeutic use, including consulting with others to select non-human monoclonal
`
`antibodies (such as a mouse monoclonal antibody) for humanization, as well as
`
`subsequent testing of the humanized antibody and its intermediates. Additionally,
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`in the prior art, computer modeling for humanization was a known methodology.
`
`The field was advancing rapidly, and individuals working in the field were highly
`
`sophisticated and using the most advanced scientific techniques.
`
`33. Based on the factors I understand I am supposed to consider,
`
`particularly factors 2–5 (¶ 29) with which I am most familiar given my experience,
`
`in my opinion Dr. Foote’s definition of one of skill in the art is a sound one and I
`
`adopt and apply it here.
`
`V. THE ’213 PATENT (EX. 1501)
`34.
`I have read the ’213 patent entitled “Method for Making Humanized
`
`Antibodies,” as well as its issued claims. I understand Pfizer is challenging claims
`
`1, 2, 4, 12, 25, 29–31, 33, 42, 60, 62–67, 69 and 71–81 (“Challenged Claims”).
`
`The Challenged Claims include claims that relate to a humanized antibody which
`
`binds to p185HER2, i.e., claims 30, 31, 33, 42 and 60. I have been asked by Pfizer to
`
`comment on antibody therapies, and in particular those that relate to p185HER2 and
`
`breast cancer.
`
`VI. STATE OF THE ART OF MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY THERAPIES
`AND CANCER
`A. Early Antibody Therapy
`35. Because of their specificity to an antigen, antibodies were considered
`
`very early on as potential therapeutics for the treatment of diseases and conditions.
`
`In particular, monoclonal antibodies created from mice, developed by Georges
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Köhler and César Milstein in 1975, were of great interest to researchers as these
`
`types of antibodies were of a single clonal population of antibodies which all
`
`bound to the same antigen with the same specificity. See, e.g., Köhler et al.,
`
`Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity,
`
`256(5517) NATURE 495 (1975) (Ex. 1522). In this seminal paper, Köhler and
`
`Milstein developed the hybridoma cell technique that fused a mouse myeloma cell
`
`with antibody-producing mouse spleen cells from an immunized donor. It then
`
`became “possible to hybridise antibody-producing cells from different origins” and
`
`that “[s]uch cells [could] be grown in vitro in massive cultures to provide a specific
`
`antibody.” Id. at 5. The authors, who went on to receive the 1984 Nobel Prize for
`
`medicine for this work, contemplated that “[s]uch cultures could be valuable for
`
`medical and industrial use.” Id. Monoclonal antibody technology thus enabled the
`
`isolation and large scale production of a single specific antibody and opened the
`
`door to using antibodies for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. See, e.g.,
`
`Prabakaran, The Quest for a Magic Bullet, 349(6246) SCIENCE 389 (2015) (Ex.
`
`1523 at 5) (“Milstein sent samples and protocols of his newly created antibody-
`
`secreting cell lines to other research institutions and even trained scientists to
`
`generate their own hybridomas.…In the years that followed, there was an
`
`explosion in Mab research. Some were generated to identify different types of
`
`white blood cells, and several proved to be important in investigating HIV/AIDS.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`The first medical application of this technology used Mabs to purify interferons,
`
`signaling proteins that are released by cells in response to the presence of
`
`pathogens.”); Marks, The story of Cesar Milstein and Monoclonal Antibodies: A
`
`Healthcare Revolution
`
`in
`
`the Making, http://www.whatisbiotechnology.org/
`
`exhibitions/milstein (last visited April 13, 2017) (Ex. 1524 at 56–57). (“By the
`
`time the Nobel Prize was awarded to Milstein and his colleagues, monoclonal
`
`antibodies had become a ubiquitous method for researchers in a multitude of
`
`disciplines. The technology not only provided the tool for those involved in basic
`
`science, but also for those looking to develop new diagnostics and therapies.”)
`
`36. Researchers thus immediately recognized the therapeutic potential of
`
`monoclonal antibodies, and began administering murine monoclonal antibodies in
`
`humans in an attempt to treat a variety of diseases, including cancer and
`
`immunological disorders. For example, the first Mab approved for human use,
`
`murine monoclonal anti-CD3 antibody, OKT3
`
`(muromonab-CD3), was
`
`investigated for its immunosuppressive activities in preventing organ graft
`
`rejection. See, e.g., Cosimi et al., Treatment of Acute Renal Allograft Rejection
`
`with OKT3 Monoclonal Antibody, 32 TRANSPLANTATION 535−39 (1981) (Ex.
`
`1525); Ortho Multicenter Transplant Study Group, A Randomized Clinical Trial of
`
`OKT3 Monoclonal Antibody for Acute Rejection of Cadveric Renal Transplants,
`
`313(6) NEW ENG. J. MED. 337 (1985) (Ex. 1526). Administration of OKT3, which
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`binds to CD3 on human T-cells and suppresses T-cell function, in patients with
`
`kidney transplants was found to be more effective in treating and reversing kidney
`
`transplant rejections than conventional steroids. Id. at 2, Abstract. Despite OKT3’s
`
`impressive and potent immunosuppressive effects, it was also found that OKT3, as
`
`a murine monoclonal antibody, elicited a strong human antibody response against
`
`OKT3 itself (HAMA Human Anti-Mouse Antibody). Jaffers et al., Monoclonal
`
`Antibody Therapy: Anti-idiotypic and Non-anti-idiotypic Antibodies to OKT3
`
`Arising Despite Intense Immunosuppression, 41(5) TRANSPLANTATION 572 (1986)
`
`(Ex. 1527). When patients with a kidney
`
`transplant received repeated
`
`administration of OKT3 over the course of 10–20 days, it was found that 75% of
`
`the patients had already developed detectable antibodies against the administered
`
`OKT3 murine monoclonal antibody. Id. at 7, Abstract. The authors postulate that
`
`“the immune response to this and probably other monoclonal antibodie,s can block
`
`their therapeutic effectiveness and can arise despite intense immunosuppression.”
`
`Id. Thus, prolonged or repeated administration of murine monoclonal antibodies
`
`was recognized as an obstacle to their use in therapy.
`
`37. With respect to cancer, Hilary Koprowski’s group from the Wistar
`
`Institute in Philadelphia in 1982, investigated the use a murine monoclonal
`
`antibody 17-1A, which was shown to lyse and specifically inhibit growth of human
`
`colon carcinomas xenografted in athymic (nu/nu) mice. See Sears et al., Phase-I
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Clinical Trial of Monoclonal Antibody in Treatment of Gastrointestinal Tumours,
`
`LANCET 762 (1982) (“Sears”) (Ex. 1528). The authors noted that while there was
`
`promise of therapeutic efficacy, three of four patients developed antibodies against
`
`the administered mouse immunoglobulin, with one patient exhibiting an adverse
`
`clinical reaction to the last injection of the antibody. Id. at 4. The investigators also
`
`postulated that the development of an immune reaction to the administered mouse
`
`immunoglobulins “may limit repeated administration of whole molecules of mouse
`
`immunoglobulins.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added); see also Sikora, Monoclonal
`
`antibodies in oncology, 35 J. CLINICAL PATHOLOGY 369–75 (1982) (Ex. 1529)
`
`(review article disclosing use of monoclonal antibodies in diagnostic and oncology
`
`treatment areas).
`
`B.
`
`to Reduce
`Efforts
`Humanization
`38. An approach to reduce the well-documented problems of immune or
`
`Immunogenicity—Chimerization
`
`and
`
`immunogenic responses observed in the therapeutic use of murine monoclonal
`
`antibodies was developed in the 1980s as researchers began producing chimeric
`
`antibodies that combined the variable (V) region binding domain of a murine
`
`antibody with human antibody constant (C) domains. Morrison et al., Chimeric
`
`human antibody molecules: Mouse antigen-binding domains with human constant
`
`region domains, 81 PROC. NAT’L ACAD. SCI. USA 6851 (1984) (Ex. 1531). Hence,
`
`a chimeric antibody would retain the binding specificity of the original murine
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`monoclonal antibody but have the human constant domain. As a result, the
`
`chimeric antibody would contain less amino acid sequences foreign to the human
`
`immune system and therefore be less immunogenic relative to the murine
`
`monoclonal antibody. Id. at 10. Further, because of the presence of a human
`
`constant domain, chimeric antibodies can also have improved function with respect
`
`to a patient’s effector cells over its murine monoclonal counterparts. Liu et al.,
`
`Chimeric mouse-human IgG1 antibody that can mediate lysis of cancer cells, 84
`
`PROC. NAT’L ACAD. SCI. USA 3439 (1987) (Ex. 1532). In cytotoxicity studies of
`
`carcinoma cell lines with effector cells, Liu et al. reported that the chimeric L6
`
`antibody mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) at 100 times
`
`lower concentration than the mouse monoclonal L6 antibody. Id. at 9, Abstract, 13,
`
`Fig. 6. Further, the chimeric L6 antibody gave higher human complement-
`
`dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) when lysing tumor cells in the presence of human
`
`complement. Id. at 12, Fig. 5.
`
`39. The properties of chimeric antibodies, which include reduced
`
`immunogenicity and improved effector function, are therefore advantageous over
`
`their murine monoclonal antibody counterparts. Unfortunately, this chimeric
`
`approach would not be applicable for OKT3 and others like it, because it was
`
`discovered that much of the strong immune response is directed against the
`
`variable region of OKT3 rather than the constant domain. Ex. 1527 at 12
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Overall, 75% of our patients who had any antibody response made anti-Id [anti-
`
`idiotype] that was able to block antigen binding.”) (emphasis added). Thus the
`
`construction of certain chimeric antibodies where their non-human variable region
`
`elicited immunogenic effects could still suffer from some of the same therapeutic
`
`issues and side effects as their murine monoclonal counterparts.
`
`40. Antibody engineering efforts sought to further minimize and reduce
`
`the immunogenicity of murine antibodies by constructing antibodies in which only
`
`the antigen binding parts of the mouse antibody, i.e., the complementarity
`
`determining regions (CDRs), were combined with human framework domains in
`
`the variable region along with the human constant regions. This technique, which
`
`sought
`
`to further ‘humanize’ or ‘reshape’ a non-human (e.g., mouse)
`
`immunoglobulin by combining its CDRs with a human framework was pioneered
`
`by Sir Gregory Winter and his colleagues at the Medical Research Council (MRC)
`
`Riechmann et al. Reshaping human antibodies for therapy. Nature 332:323-327
`
`(March 24, 1988) (“Riechmann”) (Ex. 1569). See also Verhoeyen et al., Reshaping
`
`Human Antibodies: Grafting an Antilysozyme Activity, 239 SCIENCE 1534 (1988)
`
`(Ex. 1568).
`
`41. The Winter group constructed the first humanized antibodies by
`
`combining or
`
`‘grafting’
`
`the entire CDRs
`
`from a non-human donor’s
`
`immunoglobulin onto a human acceptor framework to form a functional antibody.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`PFIZER EX. 1504
`Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`This CDR grafting procedure is first demonstrated in Jones et al., Replacing the
`
`complementarity-determining regions in a human antibody with those from a
`
`mouse, 321 NATURE 522– 25 (1986) (“Jones”) (Ex. 1533).
`
`42. Concurrent to the humanization work done by Winter at the MRC, a
`
`group led by Cary Queen at Protein Design Labs (PDL) focused on humanizing the
`
`murine monoclonal antibody anti-Tac which b