IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR: Unassigned
`Patent 9,095,559
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT
`NO. 9,095,559 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR: Unassigned
`Patent 9,095,559
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT
`NO. 9,095,559 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND REGARDING THE UREA CYCLE,
`UCDS, AND NITROGEN SCAVENGING DRUGS ..................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Urea Cycle ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Urea Cycle Disorders ............................................................................ 4
`
`Nitrogen Scavenging Drugs .................................................................. 5
`
`D. GPB ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`E.
`
`The Standard Of Care For Administering Nitrogen
`Scavenging Drugs.................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
` GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)) .............................. 10 III.
`
`IV.
`
` PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................. 10
`
`V.
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real-Parties-In-Interest ....................................................................... 10
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 11
`
`Lead And Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`And Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ............................. 12
`
`VI.
`
` SUMMARY OF THE ’559 PATENT ........................................................... 13
`
`
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 16 VII.
`
` STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED VIII.
`
`
`AND THE REASONS THEREFORE (37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22(A) AND 42.104(B)) ............................................................................ 17
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction. ............................................................................ 20
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`1.
`
`
`“Plasma Ammonia Level” Means “The Level
`Of Ammonia Found In Blood Or Plasma”. .............................. 21
`
`B.
`
`Brief Overview Of Prior Art Underlying The Grounds ...................... 22
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`5.
`
`
`6.
`
`
`7.
`
`
`Fernandes (Ex. 1015) ................................................................ 22
`
`The ’859 Publication (Ex. 1004) ............................................... 23
`
`Blau (Ex. 1006) ......................................................................... 24
`
`Simell (Ex. 1007). ..................................................................... 24
`
`Lee (Ex. 1010) ........................................................................... 25
`
`Lichter-Konecki (Ex. 1017) ...................................................... 25
`
`Pandya (Ex. 1018) ..................................................................... 26
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1: Independent Claims 1 And 2 And
`Dependent Claims 4, 7-10, 12 And 13 Are Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Fernandes In View Of
`The ’859 Publication, Optionally In View Of Blau,
`Simell And/Or Lee. ............................................................................. 27
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Independent Claims 1 And 2 Are Obvious. .............................. 27
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 7-10, 12 And 13 ...................................... 39
`
`
` Motivation To Combine Prior Art Applied In 3.
`Ground 1 ................................................................................... 43
`
`D. Ground 2: Dependent Claim 5 Is Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Fernandes In View Of The
`’859 Publication And Lee Or Lichter-Konecki,
`Optionally In Further View Of Blau Or Simell. ................................. 46
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Independent Claim 3 And Dependent
`Claims 7-9, 11, And 14 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) Over The ’859 Publication, Optionally In
`View Of Pandya And/Or Lee. ............................................................. 53
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 53
`
`Dependent Claims 7-9, 11 And 14 ............................................ 59
`
`
` Motivation To Combine References In Ground 3.
`3. ................................................................................................ 61
`
`F.
`
`Ground 4: Dependent Claims 6 And 15 Are Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over The ’859 Publication
`In View Of Fernandes, Optionally In Further View Of
`Pandya, Blau, Simell And/Or Lee. ...................................................... 62
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 62
`
`Dependent Claim 15. ................................................................ 63
`
`G.
`
`Secondary Considerations. .................................................................. 63
`
`IX.
`
` CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Par”) petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42 of claims 1
`
`to 15 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559 (“’559 Patent”).
`
`(Ex. 1001.)
`
` INTRODUCTION
`I.
`
`The Challenged Claims cover methods of selecting an initial dose and
`
`adjusting a dose of a known prior art drug in accordance with prior art standard-of-
`
`care methods for treating urea cycle disorders (“UCD”) to achieve a known result–
`
`reducing and maintaining low levels of toxic ammonia in the subject’s blood.
`
`At the time of filing of the ’559 Patent, it was already known in the prior art
`
`that the standard of care for managing urea cycle disorders was to use nitrogen
`
`scavenging drugs, which react with chemical precursors to ammonia, including the
`
`amino acid glutamine, before it can be metabolized into ammonia. (Ex. 1015, 216,
`
`219; Ex. 1004, [0005, 0015]; Ex. 1009, 1.) Glyceryl tri-[4-phenylbutyrate]1
`
`(“GPB”), the drug in the Challenged Claims, was a well-known nitrogen
`
`
`1 GPB is also known in the prior art as HPN-100, glycerol PBA, glycerol
`
`phenylbutyrate and GT4P. (Ex. 1004, [0020]; Ex. 1020, 2077; Ex. 1021, 276; Ex.
`
`1001, 1:66-2:2; Ex. 1002 ¶13 fn. 1.)
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`scavenging drug in the art prior to the filing of the ’559 Patent. (See e.g., Ex. 1004,
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`[0020].)
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to the purported discovery of a method
`
`in which GPB is administered to subjects having plasma ammonia levels greater
`
`than one-half of the “upper limit of normal” (“ULN”). Although the Challenged
`
`Claims further state that the subjects also have a plasma ammonia level that is less
`
`than ULN, the administration of nitrogen scavenging drugs to subjects having
`
`plasma ammonia in the claimed “normal” and higher range of ammonia levels was
`
`already part of the standard of care and well-known in the art prior to the filing of
`
`the ’559 Patent. (See e.g., Ex. 1015, Fig. 17.2.) Furthermore, it was well-known in
`
`the prior art to the ’559 Patent to regularly monitor a patient’s plasma ammonia
`
`levels and to adjust the dose of nitrogen scavenging drug to optimize the patient’s
`
`treatment to avoid hyperammonemic events (i.e., periods of dangerously elevated
`
`plasma ammonia). (Id., 217, 219, Fig. 17.2.)
`
`The Challenged Claims are nearly identical to those that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“the Board”) already found invalid in IPR2015-01127, which
`
`involved the ’215 Parent Patent (“the ’215 IPR”) that is in the same continuity
`
`family as the ’559 Patent. In the ’215 IPR, the Board concluded that the prior art
`
`disclosed initial and adjusted doses of nitrogen scavenging drugs to treat urea cycle
`
`disorders, including several prior art references that are raised herein. (See e.g.,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01127, Paper 49, 8-12 (Sept. 29, 2016).) The instant Challenged Claims
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`differ from those claims found invalid in the ’215 IPR merely by limiting the target
`
`patients to those whose plasma ammonia is less than the upper limit of normal.
`
`Because the prior art disclosed this limitation, however, this additional limitation
`
`provides no basis to distinguish the Board’s reasoning that the claims of the
`
`’215 Parent Patent are invalid.
`
` BACKGROUND REGARDING THE UREA
`II.
`CYCLE, UCDS, AND NITROGEN SCAVENGING DRUGS
`
`A.
`
`The Urea Cycle
`
`Protein is an essential part of everybody’s diet. Most people can consume a
`
`reasonable excess of protein without any adverse health problems. Dietary protein
`
`is metabolized into amino acids. In normal people, excess2 amino acids (such as
`
`glutamine) are metabolized into, among other things, waste nitrogen in the form of
`
`ammonia. This ammonia is processed in the urea cycle into urea through the
`
`action of enzymes. (Ex. 1008, 101.) Urea is readily eliminated from the body in
`
`urine. (Id., Fig. 1.) The following schematic figure illustrates the above and how
`
`the urea cycle contributes to the elimination of ammonia, following the unshaded
`
`pathway:
`
`2 Excess amino acids refer to amino acids beyond those necessary for ordinary
`
`bodily functions. (Ex. 1002 ¶31.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶31.)
`
`B. Urea Cycle Disorders
`
`The urea cycle is the major pathway for the metabolism and excretion of
`
`waste nitrogen. (Ex. 1008, 101.) Urea cycle disorders occur due to deficient
`
`enzymes or transporters in the urea cycle, often due to genetic conditions. (Id.,
`
`101–103; Ex. 1004, [0005].) A breakdown in the urea cycle significantly reduces
`
`the body’s ability to process excess ammonia, leading to elevated plasma ammonia
`
`levels and hyperammonemia. (Ex. 1009, 1.) The following figure illustrates the
`
`above and how a disorder in the urea cycle causes toxic ammonia to build-up in the
`
`unshaded pathway:
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶32.) Ammonia is toxic to the nerve cells. Thus, prolonged or severe
`
`hyperammonemia can cause lethargy, coma, irreversible brain defects and death.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1009, 1.)
`
`Applicants admitted during prosecution of its ’215 Parent Patent that it was
`
`“well known in the art that nitrogen retention disorders are associated with
`
`elevated blood ammonia levels, and that these disorders can be treated by
`
`administering nitrogen scavenging drugs.” (Ex. 1012, 169; see also Ex. 1004,
`
`[0015].)
`
`C. Nitrogen Scavenging Drugs
`
`In addition to diet modifications, the prior art standard of care was to
`
`administer nitrogen scavenging drugs to patients having UCDs. (Ex. 1015, 219.)
`
`As admitted in the ’559 Patent specification, such drugs were known, and were
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`primarily based on the archetypical nitrogen scavenging drug, phenylacetic acid
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`(“PAA”). (Ex. 1001, 1:54–2:2.)
`
`In the body, PAA is conjugated to glutamine to form phenylacetylglutamine
`
`(“PAGN”), which can be easily eliminated through urine. (Ex. 1004, [0022]; Ex.
`
`1011, 1.) Each molecule of glutamine converted to PAGN removes two nitrogen
`
`atoms that would form two molecules of toxic ammonia. (Ex. 1004, [0022-23].)
`
`Horizon developed two different prodrugs of PAA, both of which were
`
`known before the earliest possible filing date of the ’559 Patent. In 1996, Horizon
`
`began marketing sodium phenylbutyrate (“PBA”), under the brand name
`
`Buphenyl. PBA is rapidly metabolized to PAA after administration. (Ex. 1011, 1.)
`
`A few years later, Horizon developed the pre-prodrug GPB–the drug recited in the
`
`Challenged Claims–which is made up of three PBA molecules esterified to one
`
`glycerol molecule. (Ex. 1004, [0023]; Ex. 1019, 4:66–5:2; Ex. 1017, 324.) After
`
`administration, the PBA from GPB is metabolized by pancreatic lipases, and PBA
`
`is then metabolized into PAA. (Ex. 1010, 224.) Both GPB and PBA provide their
`
`therapeutic efficacy through the PAA that is formed after administration. (Ex.
`
`1004, [0022].)
`
`The following figure illustrates this process and how it was known in the
`
`prior art that PAA and PAA prodrugs remove free glutamine and thereby reduce
`
`the risk of toxic ammonia build-up in a UCD patient:
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶33.)
`
`Thus, nitrogen scavenging drugs PAA and its prodrugs (GPB and PBA)
`
`were well-known in the prior art to the ’599 Patent, as well as the way in which the
`
`prodrugs are converted to PAA as the following scheme illustrates:
`
`
`
`
`References:
`
`GPB
` the ’859 Publication
` the ’979 Patent
` Lichter-Konecki
` Lee
`
`
`D. GPB
`
`PBA
` Fernandes
` Blau
` Buphenyl Label
`
`PAA
` Pandya
`
`As explained above, the PAA pre-prodrug GPB–the drug recited in the
`
`Challenged Claims–was already well-known in the prior art. (Ex. 1004, [0023];
`
`Ex. 1019.) GPB was known to overcome the limitations of PBA and PAA by
`
`providing the same amount of active ingredient in a smaller dose (four
`
`teaspoonfuls instead of forty tablets), decreasing the amount of sodium intake for
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`patients, avoiding the unpleasant taste, and providing the active component of the
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`drug at a more constant level. (Ex. 1004, [0065]; Ex. 1019, 3:48-55.)
`
`Furthermore, effective doses of GPB were published by Patent Owner before
`
`September 30, 2011. For example, the ’859 Publication, also assigned to the
`
`Patent Owner (Ex. 1013), states that a way to determine an appropriate dose of
`
`GPB is by estimating that one gram of GPB can manage one to two grams of
`
`dietary protein in excess of the amount of protein that can be processed by the
`
`patient’s endogenous nitrogen elimination capacity. (Ex. 1004, [0092].) The
`
`selected dosage of GPB is “[c]ommonly” around 19 grams per day. (Id., [0179-
`
`180].) The ’859 Publication also states that an effective dosage of GPB could be
`
`determined based on the known 60% to 75% rate of conversion of GPB to urinary
`
`PAGN. (Id., claim 6.)
`
`E.
`
`The Standard Of Care For
`Administering Nitrogen Scavenging Drugs.
`
`During treatment of UCDs, physicians routinely and continuously monitor a
`
`number of different biochemical parameters, including fasting plasma ammonia
`
`levels and free blood amino acids. (Ex. 1005, 9, 16-17; Ex. 1006, 273 (Table
`
`11.9); Ex. 1007, 1117-18; Ex. 1010, 222, 226, Fig. 2.) For example, doctors
`
`routinely measure plasma ammonia to ensure that the patients did not have unduly
`
`elevated plasma ammonia levels. (Ex. 1015, 217, 219.) Measuring fasting plasma
`
`ammonia levels was preferred because plasma ammonia levels are elevated
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`throughout the day in a variable manner, especially after dietary protein from
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`meals. (See Ex. 1005, 9, 16-17; Ex. 1006, Table 11.9; Ex. 1010, 226, Fig. 2; Ex.
`
`1015, 217-18; Ex. 1017, 324.) If fasting plasma ammonia values were determined
`
`to be too high for the patient, then physicians would often adjust the dose of
`
`nitrogen scavenging drug by increasing its dose, recommend a reduction in dietary
`
`protein or both. (Ex. 1015, Fig. 17.2; Ex. 1004, [0083].)
`
`Determining whether plasma ammonia levels were being adequately
`
`controlled required comparing the patient’s plasma ammonia levels with the
`
`patient’s, hospital’s or clinic’s range of normal plasma ammonia values, as well as
`
`assessing the patient for symptomology suggesting ammonia toxicity. (Ex. 1015,
`
`219-220.) Even if a patient’s plasma ammonia was normal, elevated levels of
`
`amino acids could signal an impending hyperammonemic crisis. (Id., 219-220,
`
`Fig. 17.2.) Thus, elevated free amino acid in the blood would signal to physicians
`
`that the dose of nitrogen scavenging drugs should be increased to preempt a
`
`hyperammonemic crisis. (Id., Fig. 17.2.)
`
`Because there is no physiological consequence to low plasma ammonia
`
`levels, physicians were generally disposed to providing therapeutically acceptable
`
`doses of nitrogen scavenging drugs to reduce the risk of a hyperammonemic event.
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶35.) The ’859 Publication explains that “[i]n some patients or clinical
`
`settings, [GPB] doses well above the approved PBA dosages are expected to be
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`beneficial; for example in UCD patients who exhibit recurrent hyperammonemia
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`even on maximal doses of sodium PBA, in UCD patients who need increased
`
`dietary protein to support body requirements, or in patients with other nitrogen
`
`retaining states.” (Ex. 1004, [0086].)
`
` GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`III.
`
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ’559 Patent, issued on August 4, 2015, is
`
`available for IPR; (2) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR
`
`on the grounds identified in this Petition; and (3) Petitioner has not filed any
`
`complaint relating to the ’559 Patent. Petitioner was served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’559 Patent on July 15, 2016 (Ex. 1014), and therefore
`
`this petition is timely filed within the one-year limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`IV.
`
` PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioner authorizes required fees to be charged to Deposit Account
`
`No. 013050.
`
`V.
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`A. Real-Parties-In-Interest
`
`Petitioner Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”) is the real-party-in-interest for
`
`this proceeding. Out of an abundance of caution, and as a result of ongoing
`
`integration and reorganization activities, Petitioner identifies the following
`
`additional entities as actual or potential real-parties-in-interest who, going forward,
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`may have control over this proceeding: Endo International PLC; Endo DAC; Endo
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`Luxembourg Holding Company S.a.r.l; Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc.,
`
`Luxembourg Endo Specialty Pharmaceuticals Holding II S.a.r.l., Luxembourg
`
`Endo Specialty Pharmaceuticals Holding I S.a.r.l., and Par Pharmaceutical
`
`Companies, Inc. No other parties exercised or could have exercised control over
`
`this petition; no other parties funded or directed this petition. See Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759-60.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The following litigation matters would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`this proceeding: (1) Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 1:15-cv-07624-
`
`RBK-JS (D.N.J.) (“the Lupin Action”) and (2) Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-03910-RBK-JS (D.N.J.) (“the Par Action”).
`
`Both the Par and Lupin Actions involve, among other things, allegations that Par
`
`and Lupin, respectively, infringe the ’559 Patent.
`
`The following matters pending before the Board would affect or be affected
`
`by a decision in this proceeding: Lupin Ltd. v. Horizon Therapeutics, Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-00829 (“the Lupin IPR”). Trial in the Lupin IPR was instituted on
`
`September 30, 2016 on two grounds: (1) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12 and 13 are
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Blau, Simell and the ’859 Publication; and (2)
`
`claims 3, 6, 11, 14 and 15 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Blau, Simell, the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`’859 Publication and Brusilow ’84.3 Petitioner is not a party or real party-in-
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`interest to the Lupin IPR, and has not sought and does not seek joinder with the
`
`Lupin IPR.
`
`On April 29, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition (IPR2015-01127) for inter
`
`partes review for the ’215 Parent Patent. On September 29, 2016, the Board issued
`
`the Final Written Decision in IPR2015-01127 (“the ’215 Final Written Decision”)
`
`and determined that all the claims of the ’215 Parent Patent are unpatentable. The
`
`time to appeal the ’215 Final Written Decision has expired without appeal, and
`
`Horizon has thus waived its right to appeal the ’215 Final Written Decision.
`
`C.
`
`Lead And Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`And Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`David H. Silverstein
`Reg. No. 61,948
`Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
`114 West 47th Street
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-261-5651
`
`Dan Feng Mei
`Reg. No. 71,518
`Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
`114 West 47th Street, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-728-2216
`
`
`3 “Brusilow ’84” refers to the journal article Brusilow, Treatment of Episodic
`
`Hyperammonemia in Children with Inborn Errors of Urea Synthesis, 310 The New
`
`England Journal of Medicine: 1630-1634 (1984).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`dsilverstein@axinn.com
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`Fax: 212-728-2201
`dmei@axinn.com
`Ravicti@axinn.com
`
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel listed above.
`
`Petitioner consents to service by email, provided copies are simultaneously sent to
`
`dsilverstein@axinn.com, dmei@axinn.com, and ravicti@axinn.com.
`
`VI.
`
` SUMMARY OF THE ’559 PATENT
`
`The ’559 Patent was filed on February 22, 2013 and is a division of U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/417,137, filed on March 9, 2012, now U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,404,215 (“the ’215 Parent Patent”). The ’559 Patent claims benefit to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/564,668, filed on November 29, 2011, and U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/542,100, filed September 30, 2011. It is currently
`
`assigned to Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. (“Horizon” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’559 Patent claims priority to and has the same specification as the
`
`unpatentable ’215 Parent Patent. The earliest effective filing date of the
`
`’559 Patent is September 30, 2011.4 The ’559 Patent is set to expire on March 9,
`
`2032.
`
`
`4 Petitioner does not challenge the claims of priority or of the benefit of an earlier
`
`filing date for the purposes of this IPR petition only and reserves the right to
`
`challenge such claims in future proceedings.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`The ’215 Parent Patent was found unpatentable by the Board in IPR
`
`No. IPR2015-01127. The Challenged Claims are substantially the same as the
`
`unpatentable ’215 Parent Patent claims. The following chart is a side-by-side
`
`comparison of an exemplary, representative claim from the unpatentable
`
`’215 Parent Patent and the ’559 Patent.
`
`Unpatentable ’215 Patent,
`Exemplary Claim 1
`
`’559 Patent,
`Exemplary Claim 1
`
`A method for adjusting the dosage
`of a nitrogen scavenging drug in
`a subject who has previously been
`administered an initial dosage of
`the nitrogen scavenging drug,
`comprising:
`
`
`
`A method for adjusting the dosage
`of [GPB] in a subject being treated
`for a urea cycle disorder who has
`previously been administered an
`initial dosage of [GPB] and who
`has a fasting plasma ammonia
`level less than the upper limit of
`normal for plasma ammonia level,
`the method comprising:
`
`a) measuring a fasting blood
`ammonia level for the subject;
`
`a) measuring a fasting plasma
`ammonia level for the subject;
`
`b) comparing the fasting blood
`ammonia level to the upper limit
`of normal for blood ammonia
`level; and
`
`b) comparing the fasting plasma
`ammonia level to the upper limit
`of normal for plasma ammonia
`level; and
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`Unpatentable ’215 Patent,
`Exemplary Claim 1
`
`’559 Patent,
`Exemplary Claim 1
`
`c) administering an adjusted dosage
`of the nitrogen scavenging
`drug, wherein the adjusted
`dosage is greater than the initial
`dosage if the fasting blood
`ammonia level is greater than
`half the upper limit of normal for
`blood ammonia level.
`
`c) administering an adjusted dosage
`of [GPB], wherein the adjusted
`dosage is greater than the initial
`dosage if the fasting plasma
`ammonia level is greater than
`half the upper limit of normal for
`plasma ammonia level.
`
`
`The above chart illustrates that there are very few differences between the
`
`unpatentable ’215 Parent Patent claims and the Challenged Claims.
`
`- First, although the Challenged Claims more narrowly recite GPB instead of
`
`“nitrogen scavenging drugs,” the Board found claim 6 of the ’215 Parent
`
`Patent, which recites PAA prodrugs including GPB, invalid. (IPR2015-
`
`01127, Paper 49, 6, 24 (Sept. 29, 2016).) In any event, the same prior art
`
`that invalidated the ’215 Parent Patent claims also discloses GPB as a PAA
`
`prodrug for treating UCD.
`
`- Second, although the Challenged Claims require that the subject have “a
`
`fasting plasma ammonia level less than the upper limit of normal” and the
`
`’215 Parent Patent claims do not, the same prior art that invalidated the ’215
`
`Parent Patent claims disclose initial and adjusted doses of nitrogen
`
`scavenging drugs in UCD patients having fasted plasma ammonia levels less
`
`than the upper limit of normal.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`- Third, although the Challenged Claims recite “plasma” ammonia levels and
`
`the unpatentable ’215 Parent Patent claims recite “blood” ammonia levels,
`
`the Board and the parties have treated the two as being interchangeable.
`
`(Id., 8 n.2.)
`
`Further to these reasons discussed below, none of the differences between the
`
`unpatentable ’215 Parent Patent claims and the Challenged Claims are patentable
`
`differences and the Board’s rationale in finding the ’215 Parent Patent claims
`
`unpatentable is consistent herewith.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`VII.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is a hypothetical person who
`
`is presumed to know all of the relevant prior art, has ordinary creativity, is not an
`
`automaton, and is capable of combining teachings of the prior art. IPR2013-
`
`00116, Paper 68, 9, 37 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420–21
`
`(2007)).
`
`With respect to the ’559 Patent, Petitioner submits that a POSA is a
`
`physician or scientist with a Ph.D. or M.D. degree and specialized training in the
`
`diagnosis or treatment of inherited metabolic disorders, such as UCD and other
`
`nitrogen retention disorders. (Ex. 1002 ¶42.) Today, such a person may also have
`
`post-graduate training to fulfill the requirements of the American Board of Medical
`
`Genetics and Genomics in Clinical Genetics, Clinical Biochemical Genetics, or
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Medical Biochemical Genetics. (Id.) A POSA would easily have understood the
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`prior art references referred to herein and would have been capable of drawing
`
`inferences from them. (Id.)
`
` STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND
`VIII.
`THE REASONS THEREFORE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a) And 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1–15 on
`
`the ground listed in the tables below.5
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`1
`
`§ 103
`
`Fernandes in view of the ’859
`Publication, optionally in view of
`Blau, Simell and/or Lee
`
`2
`
`3
`
`§ 103
`
`Fernandes in view of the ’859
`Publication and Lee or Lichter-
`Konecki , optionally in further
`view of Blau or Simell
`§ 103 The ’859 Publication optionally in
`view of Pandya and/or Lee
`
`Challenged ʼ559
`Patent Claims
`Independent Claims: 1-
`2
`
`Dependent Claims: 4,
`7-10, 12, 13
`Dependent Claim: 5
`
`Independent Claim: 3
`
`Dependent Claims: 7-9,
`11, 14
`
`
`5 The ’859 Publication, Fernandes, Blau, Simell, Lichter-Konecki, and Lee were
`
`before the PTO but not in the combinations stated herein. Pandya was not before
`
`the PTO. All of the cited references are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) except
`
`for Lichter-Konecki, which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`4
`
`§ 103 The ’859 Publication, in view of
`Fernandes, optionally in further
`view of Pandya, Blau, Simell
`and/or Lee
`
`Challenged ʼ559
`Patent Claims
`Dependent Claims: 6,
`15
`
`Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c), copies of the references are filed as exhibits
`
`herewith. Additionally, Petitioner provides the declaration of Dr. Neal Sondheimer
`
`in support of the grounds for challenging the claims. (Ex. 1002.)6
`
`The ’559 Patent contains only three independent claims, claims 1, 2 and 3.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 are essentially identical as illustrated in the following table:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`A method for adjusting the dosage of
`[GPB] in a subject being treated for a
`urea cycle disorder who has previously
`been administered an initial dosage of
`[GPB] and who has a fasting plasma
`ammonia level less than the upper limit
`of normal for plasma ammonia level, the
`method comprising:
`
`A method of treating a subject with a
`urea cycle disorder who has previously
`been administered an initial dosage of
`[GPB] and who has a fasting plasma
`ammonia level less than the upper limit
`of normal for plasma ammonia level, the
`method comprising:
`
`a) measuring a fasting plasma
`ammonia level for the subject;
`
`a) measuring a fasting plasma
`ammonia level for the subject;
`
`
`6 Dr. Sondheimer is an expert in the relevant technical field, which was confirmed
`
`by the Board in the ’215 Final Written Decision. (IPR2015-01127, Paper 49, 5.)
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`b) comparing the fasting plasma
`ammonia level to the upper limit of
`normal for plasma ammonia level; and
`
`b) comparing the fasting plasma
`ammonia level to the upper limit of
`normal for plasma ammonia level; and
`
`c) administering an adjusted dosage
`of [GPB], wherein the adjusted dosage
`is greater than the initial dosage if the
`fasting plasma ammonia level is greater
`than half the upper limit of normal for
`plasma ammonia level.
`
`The claims are identical in scope notwithstanding nominal differences (highlighted
`
`c) administering an adjusted dosage
`of [GPB] that is greater than the initial
`dosage if the fasting plasma ammonia
`level is greater than half the upper limit
`of normal for plasma ammonia level.
`
`in bold italics) between them. Although claim 1’s preamble recites adjusting the
`
`GPB dosage but claim 2 does not, both claims 1 and 2 explicitly require the dose
`
`adjustment in step (c). Furthermore, in step (c), the same requirement of
`
`increasing the dose under certain conditions is recited in a “wherein” clause in
`
`claim 1 and a “that is” clause in claim 2. As such, these minor phraseological
`
`differences have no impact on the scope of the claims.
`
`Unlike the dose adjustment methods recited in claims 1 and 2, independent
`
`claim 3 is directed to administering an initial dose of GPB. Claim 3 recites:
`
`Claim 3
`
`A method of administering [GPB] to a subject having a urea
`cycle disorder, the method comprising:
`
`a) measuring a first fasting plasma ammonia level for
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559
`
`Claim 3
`
`the subject;
`
`b) comparing the first fasting plasma ammonia level to
`the upper limit of normal for plasma ammonia level; and
`
`c) administering an initial dosage of [GPB] to the
`subject if the fasting plasma ammonia level is greater than
`half the upper limit of normal for plasma ammonia level and
`less than the upper limit of normal for plasma ammonia
`level.
`
`
`Notably, steps (a) and (b) in claim 3 are identical to steps (a) and (b) in claims 1
`
`and 2.
`
`A. Claim Construction.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the Challenged Claims must be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the ’559 Patent’s intrinsic
`
`evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standar
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
