`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01622
`Patents 9,339,507
`_____________________________
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF MAUREEN D. DONOVAN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 1 of 105
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Maureen D. Donovan, Ph.D., hereby submit my expert declaration on
`
`behalf of Watson Laboratories, Inc. (“Watson”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Watson to provide technical expertise and
`
`expert opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,339,507 (“the ’507 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`The opinions to which I will testify at trial, if asked, are set forth in this
`
`report. My opinions in this report are based upon the information that I have
`
`received to date. They may be supplemented or modified if additional information
`
`is received. They also may be supplemented to reply to additional information or
`
`opinions provided by the parties (or witnesses retained by the parties) and issues that
`
`may arise at trial.
`
`4.
`
`I may rely on demonstrative exhibits at trial to assist in explaining my
`
`trial testimony.
`
`II.
`
`PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am a Professor in the Division of Pharmaceutics and Translational
`
`Therapeutics at the University of Iowa College of Pharmacy. I have more than 25
`
`years of experience working and consulting in the field of pharmaceutics. My
`
`curriculum vitae is attached to this report as Exhibit A.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 2 of 105
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I am an expert in pharmaceutics. I received my Bachelor of Science in
`
`Pharmacy from the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy in 1983 and my
`
`Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics from the University of Michigan in 1989.
`
`7. My professional experience includes working as a Staff Pharmacist for
`
`Clark Professional Pharmacy from 1986 until 1989 and as a Visiting Scholar for
`
`SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals in 1991. From 1989 through the present, I
`
`have held various positions at the University of Iowa College of Pharmacy.
`
`Specifically, in the Division of Pharmaceutics, I was an Assistant Professor from
`
`1989 until 1996, and an Associate Professor from 1996 until 2008. I was promoted
`
`to the rank of Professor in 2008 in the College of Pharmacy, and I currently hold this
`
`position. From 2008 until 2013, I was the Division Head for the Division of
`
`Pharmaceutics. In 2013, I became the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs
`
`at the College of Pharmacy, and I currently hold this position.
`
`8.
`
`I have over 25 years of experience in pharmaceutical research and
`
`development
`
`including actively
`
`teaching drug delivery, pharmaceutical
`
`preformulation, and compounding to pharmacy students and graduate students, and
`
`directing research programs focused on drug absorption, nasal drug delivery, and
`
`alternative routes of drug delivery and delivery systems.
`
`9.
`
`I have published numerous articles, book chapters, and abstracts in the
`
`area of pharmaceutics, drug absorption, drug delivery, and materials
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 3 of 105
`
`
`
`characterization. I also belong to several professional societies for pharmaceutical
`
`science and technology, including the American Association of Pharmaceutical
`
`Scientists and the Controlled Release Society.
`
`10.
`
`I am being compensated for my work at $250 per hour for general
`
`document and background review; $400 per hour spent preparing reports; and a daily
`
`rate of $5,000 when testifying. No part of this compensation due or received is
`
`contingent upon the outcome of this matter or the pending litigation.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to my knowledge, education, and experience in the field of
`
`pharmaceutical formulation, in forming the opinions I express in this report, I
`
`reviewed the full list of materials cited herein.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`12. As explained in detail in section VII.C., each of the claims of the ’507
`
`patent would have been obvious in light of the prior art as of May 15, 2006, which
`
`collectively teach and motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a kit
`
`comprising a therapeutically effective amount of treprostinil by inhalation in an
`
`aerosol form in a pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer utilizing an opto-acoustical trigger,
`
`with instructions for use.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`13. While I am neither a patent lawyer nor an expert in patent law, I have
`
`been informed of the applicable legal standards for patent invalidity. I have relied
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 4 of 105
`
`
`
`upon these legal principles, as explained to me by counsel, in forming my opinions
`
`set forth in my report.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that clear and convincing evidence must be presented to
`
`render a patent claim invalid. I understand that evidence is sufficiently clear and
`
`convincing if it leaves the fact-finder with a definite and firm belief in the truth of a
`
`fact.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that, even if a single prior art reference does not disclose
`
`each and every limitation of the claim, a patent claim may still be invalid as obvious.
`
`I have been informed that the standard for obviousness for the patent-in-suit, which
`
`was was filed prior to the effective date of the AIA, is set out in pre-AIA version of
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a), which is quoted below:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of
`this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by
`the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that in order for a patent claim to be considered
`
`obvious, at the time the invention was made, each and every limitation of the claim
`
`must be present within the prior art, or within the prior art in combination with the
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 5 of 105
`
`
`
`general knowledge held by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), and that
`
`such a person would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these
`
`teachings to achieve the claimed invention. I also understand that the reason to select
`
`and combine features, the predictability of the results of doing so, and a reasonable
`
`expectation of success of doing so may be found in the teachings of the prior art
`
`themselves, in the nature of any need or problem in the field that was addressed by
`
`the patent, in the knowledge of a POSA in the field at the time, as well as in common
`
`sense or the level of creativity exhibited by a POSA. There need not be an express
`
`or explicit suggestion to combine references. I understand the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that an analysis of whether a claim would have been
`
`obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention requires an analysis of at least four
`
`criteria: (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art, (ii) the scope and content of the art,
`
`(iii) any differences between the prior art and the patent claims, and (iv) any
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness. I have been informed that the patentee may
`
`rely on objective evidence of non-obviousness, and that I will have an opportunity
`
`to rebut any evidence that the patentee puts forward.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that an analysis of whether a claim would have been
`
`obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention includes an analysis of any objective
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 6 of 105
`
`
`
`indicia of non-obviousness. To be relevant to an obviousness analysis, I understand
`
`there must be a nexus between the secondary consideration of nonobviousness and
`
`features of the patent-in-suit that are both novel and actually claimed in the patent.
`
`In other words, evidence of a secondary consideration is only relevant if it relates to
`
`a claim element that is unique to the patents-in-suit, and not already disclosed by the
`
`prior art.
`
`19. A prior art reference can be said to teach away when a POSA would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken in the claimed invention. The mere
`
`disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from
`
`alternatives that are not disclosed when the prior art does not criticize, discredit, or
`
`otherwise discourage the solution claimed in the alleged invention. Similarly, a prior
`
`art reference that merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention
`
`does not teach away.
`
`20.
`
`I have relied upon this understanding of the applicable legal standards
`
`in reaching my opinions set forth in my report.
`
`V.
`
` BACKGROUND AND TUTORIAL
`
`21. The patent-in-suit relates to the treatment of pulmonary hypertension
`
`using a drug called treprostinil. Specifically, the treprostinil treatment is delivered
`
`by inhalation, using a nebulizer. The background below and tutorial serves as a
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 7 of 105
`
`
`
`primer to explain the background of the development of treprostinil for therapeutic
`
`use and the background in the development of the technology used to deliver drugs
`
`via inhalation.
`
`Pulmonary Hypertension
`
`1.
`22. Pulmonary hypertension can be described as an increase in “resistance
`
`to pulmonary blood flow” and “an elevation of pulmonary arterial pressure over
`
`normal levels.”1 Other measureable hemodynamics associated with pulmonary
`
`hypertension include left atrial pressure, central venous pressure, systemic arterial
`
`pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output.2
`
`23. Pulmonary hypertension “can be a manifestation of an obvious or
`
`explicable increase in resistance, such as obstruction to blood flow by pulmonary
`
`emboli, malfunction of the heart’s valves or muscle in handling blood after its
`
`passage through the lungs, diminution in pulmonary vessel caliber as a reflex
`
`response to alveolar hypoxia due to lung diseases or high altitude, or a mismatch of
`
`vascular capacity and essential blood flow, such as shunting of blood in congenital
`
`abnormalities or surgical removal of lung tissue.”3
`
`1 Ex. 1001, at col. 2, ll. 7-9.
`
`2 Ex. 1018 at col. 7, ll. 25–33.
`
`3 Ex 1001, at col. 1, ll. 42-50.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 8 of 105
`
`
`
`24. Pulmonary hypertension may be either acute or chronic.4 Acute
`
`pulmonary hypertension may be a reversible condition triggered by “hypoxia (as in
`
`high-altitude sickness), acidosis,
`
`inflammation, or pulmonary embolism.”5
`
`“Chronic pulmonary hypertension is characterized by major structural changes in
`
`the pulmonary vasculature.”6 The causes for chronic pulmonary hypertension
`
`include “chronic hypoxia, thromboembolism, collagen vascular diseases, pulmonary
`
`hypercirculation due to left-to-right shunt, HIV infection, portal hypertension or a
`
`combination of genetic mutation and unknown causes.”7
`
`25. Life expectancy for patients with pulmonary hypertension is extremely
`
`short and death is often sudden due to failure of the right side of the heart.8
`
`Compounds that are effective in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension, therefore,
`
`have been the subject of significant research and development.
`
`4 Ex. 1001 at Col. 2, l. 24.
`
`5 Id. at ll. 25-29.
`
`6 Id. at ll. 30-38.
`
`7 Id.
`
`8 Ex. 1028 at 820.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 9 of 105
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Early Development of Treprostinil for the Treatment of
`Pulmonary Hypertension
`
`26. Treprostinil is a part of a sub-class of prostacyclin analogs called
`
`benzindene prostaglandins.9 Prostacyclin is “an endogenously produced compound
`
`in mammalian species.”10 It is both “structurally and biosynthetically related to the
`
`prostaglandins.”11
`
`27. The beneficial pharmacological effects of prostaglandins have been
`
`known for decades. Prostacyclin was first synthesized in the 1970s and was
`
`discovered to act as a strong local vasodilator that inhibits the aggregation of blood
`
`platelets.12
`
`28.
`
`In 1981, U.S. Patent No. 4,306,075 (“Aristoff ’075”) taught that
`
`benzidene prostaglandins were found to “have useful application as antithrombotic
`
`agents, anti-ulcer agents, and anti-asthma agents”13 due to their ability to “produce
`
`9 Ex. 1019 at col. 1, ll. 16–24.
`
`10 Id. at col. 1, ll. 25–26.
`
`11 Id. at col. 1, ll. 26–27.
`
`12 See Ex. 1028 at 820 (noting that “[i]ntravenous prostacyclin is a potent pulmonary
`
`vasodilator in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension”).
`
`13 Ex. 1019 at col. 12, ll. 35–37.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 10 of 105
`
`
`
`various pharmacological responses, such as inhibition of platelet aggregation,
`
`reduction of gastric secretion, and bronchodilation.”14 These prostacyclin analogs
`
`“produce certain prostacyclin-like pharmacological responses” and formulas
`
`containing these analogs “are used as agents in the study, prevention, control, and
`
`treatment of diseases, and other undesirable physiological conditions, in mammals,
`
`particularly humans.”15
`
`29.
`
`In 1989 EP 0347243 A1 taught “prostaglandins for use in the
`
`prophylaxis, treatment, or diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension.”16 EP ’243
`
`identifies treprostinil17 as a “particularly preferred compound[]” with “exceptional
`
`pulmonary anti-hypertensive properties.”18
`
`30. Likewise, in 1992, U.S. Patent No. 5,153,222 (“Tadepalli ’222”)
`
`disclosed and claimed the use of treprostinil in the treatment of pulmonary
`
`14 Ex. 1020 at col. 1, ll. 22–25.
`
`15 Id. at col. 12, ll. 27–32.
`
`16 Ex. 1021 at 2, ll. 3-5.
`
`17
`
`Identified
`
`as
`
`“9-deoxy-2’,9α-methano-3-oxa-4,5,6-trinor-3,7-(1’,3’-
`
`interphenylene)-13,14-dihydroprostaglandin F1.”
`
`18 Ex. 1021 at 3, ll. 60-62.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 11 of 105
`
`
`
`hypertension.19 Specifically, Tadepalli ’222 disclosed the results of certain animal
`
`studies finding that treprostinil, “reduce[d] hypoxia-induced increase in pulmonary
`
`arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance in a dose-related manner without
`
`appreciably affecting cardiac output or heart rate.”20 The inventors observed that
`
`“[t]he hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction did not return to its control value within 15
`
`minutes of terminating the final infusion indicating a relatively long duration of
`
`action for [treprostinil].”21 In another study, the inventors observed “a dose-
`
`dependent fall in systolic and diastolic pressures were observed for a period of up to
`
`8 hours after administration
`
`indicating
`
`that [treprostinil] had good oral
`
`bioavailability.”22
`
`31. Tadepalli ’222 explained that, like prostacyclin, treprostinil acts as a
`
`potent vasodilator that widens the blood vessels and decreases pulmonary arterial
`
`pressure. It also was found to have little effect on cardiac output and heart rate, two
`
`beneficial traits for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension.23
`
`19 Ex. 1025 at Cover 6, ll. 27-50.
`
`20 Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–32.
`
`21 Id. at col. 6, ll. 35–39.
`
`22 Id. at col. 6, ll. 47–50.
`
`23 Id. at col. 6, ll. 30–31.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 12 of 105
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In 1993, U.S. Patent No. 5,234,953 (“Crow ’953”) disclosed
`
`that “[c]ompound A [i.e., treprostinil] was found to [be] a potent pulmonary
`
`vasodilator… [that] markedly attenuated the pulmonary vasoconstriction induced by
`
`hypoxia.”24 It further discloses other “acute beneficial hemodynamic effects” of
`
`treprostinil including “substantial reductions in pulmonary vascular resistance,
`
`pulmonary arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance and mean arterial blood
`
`pressure and increases in cardiac output and stroke volume.”25 Crow ‘953 teaches
`
`the use of treprostinil in patients with congestive heart failure which is accompanied
`
`by pulmonary hypertension.
`
`Drug Delivery by Inhalation
`
`3.
`33. Delivery of drugs by inhalation has been utilized for hundreds of years.
`
`In particular, inhalation has been known and used as an effective method of drug
`
`delivery to the lungs. Since at least the early 1950s drug delivery by inhalation was
`
`considered to be “an important means of treating a variety of conditions, including
`
`such common local conditions as bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive
`
`pulmonary disease and some systemic conditions, including hormone replacement,
`
`24 Ex. 1054 at col. 7, ll. 19–22.
`
`25 Ex. 1054 at col. 7, ll. 22–28.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 13 of 105
`
`
`
`pain management, cystic fibrosis, etc.”26 Several advantages are associated with
`
`inhalation delivery.27 First, inhalation allows the drug to be delivered “directly to
`
`the site of drug action.”28 Inhalation also results in “rapid onset of the therapeutic
`
`effect, compared with other routes of administration, such as intramuscular and oral
`
`routes.”29 Additionally, inhalation may be beneficial “[f]or drugs which are
`
`susceptible to breakdown in the gastrointestinal tract.”30
`
`34. The active drug can be formulated as a solution, suspension, or a solid.
`
`In the first case, “the drug is dissolved in a suitable solvent which can be aerosolized
`
`to form a small-particle mist.”31 By 2006, the existing devices that could aerosolize
`
`the solution included at least a pneumatic nebulizer, ultrasonic nebulizer, or “a self-
`
`contained nebulizer containing a pressurized, fluorocarbon propellant.”32 Pneumatic
`
`nebulizers—also known as jet nebulizers—are powered by compressed air or
`
`26 Ex. 1022 at col. 1, ll. 10-15; Ex. 1023 at p. 2, ll. 4–9.
`
`27 Ex. 1024 at col. 1, ll. 36–46; col. 15, ll. 39–45.
`
`28 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36–39.
`
`29 Id. at col. 1, ll. 39–41.
`
`30 Id. at col. 1, ll. 42–46.
`
`31 Id. at col. 1, ll. 49–67.
`
`32 Id.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 14 of 105
`
`
`
`another gas. Ultrasonic nebulizers utilize a source of ultrasound acoustically
`
`coupled to a liquid in a nebulization chamber to generate an aerosol of small liquid
`
`droplets to be delivered in controlled doses to a patient.33
`
`35. To determine the optimal nebulizer, formulators would often compare
`
`jet and ultrasonic nebulizers to determine which could ideally deliver the target dose
`
`in an efficient manner.34 These device-comparison studies showed that ultrasonic
`
`nebulizers consistently produced a higher output of drug aerosol.35
`
`36. Most nebulizers operate by inserting or emptying an ampoule
`
`containing a solution of the active ingredient and optional excipients into the
`
`chamber.36 Once the ampule is inserted into the nebulizer and it is turned on, the
`
`solution is nebulized at a certain rate. This rate is typically a constant rate, however
`
`the rate of nebulization was adjustable in some devices.37
`
`33 Ex. 1026 at col. 1, ll. 5–26.
`
`34 Ex. 1027 at Abstr., 15.
`
`35 Id.
`
`36 Ex. 1018 at col. 8, l. 39–col. 9, l. 3.
`
`37 The Nebu-Tec website explains that the OptiNeb® has a nebulization rate of <0.6
`
`mL/min. (Ex. 1014 at B-2 at 26.) In one particle size test, the output of the
`
`OptiNeb® ultrasonic nebulizer was 173±3 μL/min. (Id. at 31.)
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 15 of 105
`
`
`
`37. By 2006 the delivery of a pharmaceutical product via nebulizer used at
`
`least two different methods to administer the prescribed dose—either a constant or
`
`a pulsed delivery. As opposed to a constant stream of aerosol delivery, a pulsed
`
`nebulizer only dispenses drug intermittently.38 Because some 50% of any aerosol
`
`produced by a continuous dose nebulizer is lost while a patient is exhaling, a pulsed
`
`nebulizer offers the benefits of less drug waste and lower costs through greater
`
`efficiency.39
`
`38. For example, a 2003 paper reported tests conducted with a nebulizer
`
`called “HaloLite:”
`
`The HaloLite is a new electronically controlled device, applying
`aerosol pulses only in a preset period during early inspiration,
`with delivery adjusted to the breathing pattern. These aerosol
`pulses are added up, and the device stops automatically when the
`target dose has been delivered. The main advantages of the
`system are the virtual absence of aerosol delivered to the airway
`dead space, the fact that the predefined drug dose will be applied
`irrespective of the breathing pattern, and the low volume of
`inhalation solution necessary for sufficient nebulization.
`
`
`
`38 E.g., Ex. 1029 at 1301-02.
`
`39 See Ex. 1030 at 322–23.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 16 of 105
`
`
`
`39. While complicated and expensive devices like HaloLite used advanced
`
`computer systems to calculate the amount of drug delivered,40 other pulsed
`
`nebulizers provided sensory cues to the patient, telling him/her when and how to
`
`breathe.41
`
`4.
`
`The Development of Inhaled Treprostinil for the Treatment
`of Pulmonary Hypertension.
`
`40. Because of its ability to administer drugs directly to the lungs,
`
`inhalation delivery has proven to be especially beneficial for the treatment of
`
`pulmonary conditions, including pulmonary hypertension.
`
`41. By the early 1990s, investigators had begun researching the delivery of
`
`prostacyclin and its analogues via inhalation for the treatment of pulmonary
`
`hypertension.
`
`40 See id.
`
`41 See Ex. 1031 at col. 34:57-35:14. (“[t]he timing device can be electrically
`
`connected with visual display signals as well as audio alarm signals. Using the
`
`timing device, the microprocessor can be programmed so as to allow for a visual or
`
`audio signal to be sent when the patient would be normally expected to administer
`
`respiratory drug.”)
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 17 of 105
`
`
`
`42. For example, Crow ’953 disclosed the use of treprostinil, including in
`
`the treatment of patients with congestive heart failure that was accompanied by
`
`pulmonary hypertension.42 Crow further disclosed that treprostinil could be
`
`delivered via pulmonary inhalation and disclosed formulations, nebulizers and
`
`droplet sizes for doing so.43
`
`43. Similarly, a 1996 paper by Olschewski, et al. reported on “the effects
`
`of aerosolization of prostacyclin and its stable analog iloprost with those of nasal
`
`oxygen, inhaled nitric oxide, and intravenous prostacyclin on hemodynamics and
`
`gas exchange in patients with severe pulmonary hypertension.”44 This trial found
`
`that “[a]erosolized prostacyclin achieved the same reduction in pulmonary vascular
`
`resistance [as with intravenous prostacyclin] with a smaller increase in cardiac
`
`output but a significant decline in pulmonary artery pressure.”45 Thus, the authors
`
`concluded that aerosolized prostacyclin achieved “selectivity for the pulmonary
`
`circulation…as indicated by a substantial decrease of pulmonary artery pressure and
`
`42 Ex. 1054 at col. 3, l. 59–col. 4, l. 11.
`
`43 Ex. 1054 at col. 5, ll. 50–53.
`
`44 Ex. 1028 at 820.
`
`45 Id. at 822.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 18 of 105
`
`
`
`a smaller effect on systemic arterial pressure.”46 Olschewksi also reported that “the
`
`stable prostacyclin analog iloprost caused nearly identical changes in hemodynamics
`
`and gas exchange [as that of aerosolized prostacyclin].”47 Thus, iloprost had been
`
`shown to improve survival, exercise capacity, and hemodynamics in patients with
`
`severe pulmonary hypertension.48
`
`44. By the early 2000s, Cloutier disclosed and claimed the administration
`
`of a therapeutically effective amount of treprostinil by inhalation for the treatment
`
`of pulmonary hypertension.49 The Cloutier patents included claims directed to the
`
`treatment of pulmonary hypertension in humans via aerosolized treprostinil
`
`delivery.50
`
`45. Cloutier observed that aerosolized treprostinil could be given in high
`
`doses without significant non-lung effects—i.e., heart rate and cardiac output.51 In
`
`particular, aerosolized treprostinil had no effect on systemic arterial pressure or
`
`46 Id.
`
`47 Id. (emphasis added).
`
`48 Ex. 1033 at 58S.
`
`49 Ex. 1018 at cl. 6-8.
`
`50 Id.
`
`51 Id. at col. 10, ll. 50–57.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 19 of 105
`
`
`
`cardiac output.52 Cloutier also observed that administration of treprostinil by
`
`inhalation has a much greater potency than intravascular administration:53
`
`46. A number of commercial products for the treatment of pulmonary
`
`hypertension were approved in the mid-2000s as well. For example, in 2002, FDA
`
`approved Remodulin® an
`
`injectable
`
`treprostinil product (i.e., continuous
`
`subcutaneous infusion) that was indicated for the treatment of pulmonary
`
`hypertension.54 Remodulin® is supplied in 20 mL multi-use vials in four
`
`concentrations, containing either 1.0 mg/mL, 2.5 mg/mL, 5.0 mg/mL, or 10 mg/mL
`
`of treprostinil.55
`
`47. Ventavis, an inhaled iloprost product for the treatment of pulmonary
`
`hypertension, was first approved in Europe in September 2003 for marketing by
`
`Schering AG.56 Originally, Ventavis was approved for use with two commercially
`
`available jet nebulizers, the Prodose and HaloLite.57 Pre-approval studies, however,
`
`52 Id. at col. 11, ll. 23–44; col. 12, ll. 28–61; figs. 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 & 15.
`
`53 Id. at col. 8, ll. 5–12.
`
`54 See Ex. 1035.
`
`55 Id. at 4.
`
`56 See Ex. 1036; Ex. 1037.
`
`57 See Ex. 1038.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 20 of 105
`
`
`
`were conducted using six different nebulizers, one of which was the OptiNeb®
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer and another of which was the OptiNeb®-ir ultrasonic
`
`nebulizer.58 The use of the OptiNeb® line of ultrasonic nebulizers with iloprost was
`
`also reported in 2003 in Anesthesiology,59 and 2004 in the European Journal of
`
`Anaesthesiology.60
`
`48. The Venta-Neb® nebulizer was also used to deliver iloprost/Ventavis
`
`as early as February 2004.61 Indeed, the Nebu-Tec website included information
`
`about the Venta-Neb® nebulizer and its use with Ventavis as early as June 2004.62
`
`49.
`
`In September 2005, Schering obtained approval to add the Venta-Neb®
`
`nebulizer to the Ventavis label in Europe.63 After the label was approved, the Venta-
`
`Neb® nebulizer was used to deliver Ventavis to patients for the treatment of
`
`pulmonary hypertension.
`
`58 Ex. 1039.
`
`59 Ex. 1040.
`
`60 Ex. 1041.
`
`61 See Ex. 1007.
`
`62 See Ex. 1014 at Ex. B-3 at 42, 49.
`
`63 Ex. 1043; Ex. 1044; Ex. 1045; see also Ex. 1038.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 21 of 105
`
`
`
`50. After approval of Ventavis with Venta-Neb®, the Ventavis label
`
`included the following information about the use and characteristics of the Venta-
`
`Neb®: “Venta-Neb prompts the patient to inhale by an optical and an acoustic
`
`signal.”64 The label further instructed patients to “refer to the instruction manual of
`
`the Venta-Neb nebulizer” for additional details.65
`
`51. The Venta-Neb®-ir A-I-C-I User Manual indicates that it is a “Mobile
`
`Ultrasonic Nebulizer for VENTAVIS® Inhalation.”66 The manual is directed to
`
`patients in connection with their “treatment with the VENTANEB-ir.”67 The Venta-
`
`Neb® User Manual details the functionality of the Venta-Neb® nebulizer.
`
`Specifically, it confirms that Venta-Neb® included Nebu-Tec’s A-I-C-I technology,
`
`which stands for active intermittent controlled inhalation.68 This functionality was
`
`publicly known at least as early as 2004.69 The Venta-Neb®-ir A-I-C-I User Manual
`
`64 Ex. 1009 at 3, 30.
`
`65 Id.
`
`66 Ex. 1008 at 1.
`
`67 Id. at 2.
`
`68 Id. at 32.
`
`69 See e.g. Ex. 1014 at Ex. A-1 at 4.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 22 of 105
`
`
`
`also explains that the A-I-C-I functionality includes an optical and acoustic signal to
`
`guide a patient’s inhalation:70
`
`52. The Venta-Neb®-ir A-I-C-I User Manual also explains that “[d]ue to
`
`this to this inhalation-scheme, a more efficient and a precise dosage can be
`
`
`
`guaranteed.”71
`
`53. Ventavis was subsequently approved in the United States in 2004 and
`
`is indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension. As the first commercially
`
`available inhalation treatment for pulmonary hypertension, Ventavis demonstrated
`
`the potential for future inhalable drugs for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension.
`
`54. Another pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer manufactured by Nebu-Tec,
`
`known as OptiNeb®, was also known to be used to deliver inhaled treprostinil by
`
`the mid-2000s.
`
`70 Ex. 1008 at 32.
`
`71 Id. at 33.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 23 of 105
`
`
`
`55. Specifically, in the Fall of 2004, researchers at the University of
`
`Giessen in Germany—including Robert Voswinckel and Hossein Ghofrani—
`
`published their initial findings of a study involving the use of OptiNeb® to deliver
`
`treprostinil.72 Specifically, the results were published in an October 2004
`
`supplement to Circulation, naming Voswinckel as the lead author.73 The abstract
`
`was published in advance of presentation of the study at the 2004 American Heart
`
`Association conference in New Orleans, which was held from November 7-10,
`
`2004.74
`
`56. This Voswinckel study observed the effects of inhaled treprostinil in 17
`
`patients with severe pulmonary hypertension.75 Using a “pulsed OptiNeb®
`
`ultrasound nebulizer,” and a solution containing 600 µg/mL of treprostinil, each
`
`patient took three single breaths from the device and was observed for two hours.
`
`Voswinckel’s study also observed the effects from two patients who received four
`
`72 Ex. 1003 at 7; see also Ex. 1046 at 22 (disclosing the results of a test of inhaled
`
`treprostinil administered to 21 patients using an OptiNeb® ultrasonic nebulizer and
`
`measuring effects for 180 minutes).
`
`73 Id.
`
`74 Ex. 1048 at 1, 3.
`
`75 Ex. 1003 at III-295.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 24 of 105
`
`
`
`of these doses per day. Voswinckel concluded that inhaled treprostinil “resulted in
`
`a sustained, highly pulmonary selective vasodilation over 120 minutes.” Further,
`
`“[t]olerability is excellent even at high drug concentrations and short inhalation
`
`times (3 breaths). Long-term treatment effects are very promising.” Voswinckel’s
`
`findings gained immediate interest, as they were cited in a 2005 paper by Sulica and
`
`Poon in Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy.76
`
`57. Voswinckel and others published a second paper in 2004 discussing the
`
`use of OptiNeb® to deliver inhaled treprostinil.77 This study also used an “Optineb
`
`ultrasound nebulizer” but in a continuous administration mode, producing a constant
`
`stream of aerosol for six minutes.78 This study administered treprostinil to 21
`
`patients (8 receiving placebo), using formulations containing 16, 32, 48, or 64
`
`µg/mL of treprostinil.79 The patients were observed periodically for 180 minutes
`
`following inhalation, and Voswinckel similarly concluded that “[t]reprostinil
`
`inhalation results in a significant long-lasting pulmonary vasodilation.”80
`
`76 Ex. 1047 at 351.
`
`77 Ex. 1046 at 22.
`
`78 Id.
`
`79 Id.
`
`80 Id.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. , IPR2017-01622, Ex. 1002, p. 25 of 105
`
`
`
`58. Some of the same researchers published another paper in June 2005,
`
`with Ghofrani as the lead author.81 The Ghofrani paper provided an overview of
`
`several key studies related to the treatment of pulmonary hypertension.82 As for
`
`inhaled treprostinil, Ghofrani noted that “[t]reprostinil is a long-acting prostacyclin
`
`analog, which offers potential benefits versus [previous prostacyclin analogs] due to
`
`its long plasma half life and chemical stability in solution.”83 Ghofrani further
`
`explained that in response to observations of pain at the injection site associated with
`
`the subcutaneous administration of treprostinil, Ghofrani’s research team had
`
`conducted initial trials which “have shown proof of efficacy of inhaled treprostinil
`
`for the effective reduction of the pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR).”84
`
`59. Ghofrani explains that this proof of efficacy came from a study where
`
`17 pat