throbber

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`POZEN INC. and HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC.,
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 to Ault et al.
`
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND ................................................ 4
`A.
`Education and Experience .................................................................... 4
`B. Materials Considered ............................................................................ 7
`C.
`Scope of Work ...................................................................................... 7
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 8
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 9
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 11
`V.
`BACKGROUND ON NSAID-RELATED GASTRIC INJURY ................. 11
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,220,698 (Ex. 1001) .................................................... 12
`VII. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............. 17
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 (Ex. 1004) ................................................ 17
`B. U.S. Patent No. 8,557,285 (Ex. 1005) ................................................ 21
`C. Howden 2005 (Ex. 1006) ................................................................... 24
`D.
`EC-Naprosyn Prescribing Information (Ex. 1009) ........................... 25
`E.
`Other Art that Informs Person of Ordinary Skill’s Knowledge ......... 25
`1.
`Zegerid (omeprazole) Powder for Oral Suspension
`Prescribing Information (2004) (Ex. 1010) ............................. 25
`Goldstein (Ex. 1011) ................................................................ 26
`2.
`Hochberg (Ex. 1012) ................................................................ 27
`3.
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE ’698 PATENT ......................................... 28
`A.
`Claims 1-7 of the ’698 Patent Are Anticipated or Obvious over
`the ’285 Patent .................................................................................... 28
`1.
`The method of claim 1 is anticipated by or obvious over
`the ’285 patent .......................................................................... 28
`Claim 2 is anticipated by or obvious over the ’285 patent ...... 31
`Claims 3 and 4 are anticipated or obvious over the ’285
`patent ........................................................................................ 32
`
`2.
`3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`X.
`
`Claims 5 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over the ’285
`patent ........................................................................................ 32
`Claim 7 is anticipated or obvious over the ’285 patent ........... 33
`5.
`B. All Claims of the ’698 Patent Are Obvious Over the ’285 patent
`in View of Howden 2005 and EC-Naprosyn ..................................... 34
`1.
`The method of claim 1 is obvious over the ’285 patent in
`view of Howden 2005 and EC-Naprosyn ................................ 34
`Claim 2 is obvious over the ’285 patent in view of
`Howden 2005 and EC-Naprosyn ............................................. 35
`Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over the ’285 patent in view
`of Howden 2005 and EC-Naprosyn ......................................... 36
`Claims 5 and 6 are obvious over the ’285 patent in view
`of Howden 2005 and EC-Naprosyn ......................................... 36
`Claim 7 is obvious over the ’285 patent in view of
`Howden 2005 and EC-Naprosyn ............................................. 36
`IX. NO SUPPOSED SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OVERCOME
`THE OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS ............................................................. 37
`A.
`The ’698 Patent Does Not Demonstrate Any Unexpected Result ..... 37
`B.
`There Is No Evidence of Industry Skepticism of the ’698 Patent ...... 39
`C.
`The ’698 Patent Has Not Met Any Long-Felt, but Unmet Need ....... 39
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 40
`
`
`
`3
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`1.
`
`I, David C. Metz, M.D., have been retained by counsel for Petitioner
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”). I understand that Mylan is petitioning for
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 to Ault et al. (“the ’698
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Pozen Inc. and Horizon Pharma USA,
`
`Inc. (“Patent Owners”), to request that the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office cancel certain claims of the ’698 patent as unpatentable. I submit this
`
`expert declaration in support of Mylan’s IPR petition for the ’698 patent.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`A. Education and Experience
`I am Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine at the
`2.
`
`University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I am also Associate Chief
`
`for Clinical Affairs in the Division of Gastroenterology, Director of the Acid
`
`Peptic Disorders Program, Co-Director of the Gastrointestinal (GI) Physiology
`
`Lab, Co-Director of the Penn Program for Swallowing Disorders, and Co-Director
`
`of the Penn Neuroendocrine Tumor Program.
`
`3.
`
`I have been practicing medicine in the field of gastroenterology for
`
`over 30 years with a special emphasis on upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract disease
`
`states. I am board certified in gastroenterology and in internal medicine, and listed
`
`in Best Doctors in America (Northeast Region). The majority of my clinical
`
`activity revolves around the treatment of patients with acid-peptic conditions, and I
`
`
`
`4
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`have conducted many research protocols involving Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs).
`
`As part of my medical practice, I have thousands of patients under my care.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the
`
`University of the Witwatersrand Medical School, in Johannesburg, South Africa, in
`
`1982. A Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery is the South African
`
`equivalent of a doctor of medicine degree in the United States. In 1983, I interned
`
`at the Johannesburg General Hospital in General Medicine and General Surgery.
`
`From 1984 to 1985, I was in private practice, first in South Africa, and later in
`
`London, England.
`
`5.
`
`From 1986 to 1988, I did an internship and residency in internal
`
`medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. From
`
`1989 to 1991, I completed a fellowship in gastroenterology in a combined program
`
`with Georgetown University, the Washington Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center,
`
`and the National Institutes of Health. From 1991 to 1993, I was a senior staff
`
`fellow in the Digestive Diseases Branch of the National Institutes of Health,
`
`Bethesda, Maryland, where I studied Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome, the prototypical
`
`acid hypersecretory condition, the management of which requires, amongst other
`
`interventions, therapy with PPIs.
`
`6.
`
`In 1993, I became an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the
`
`Department of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
`
`
`
`5
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 5
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`Pennsylvania. In 1998, I was promoted to Associate Professor of Medicine. In
`
`2003, I became Professor of Medicine, a position I continue to hold today.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to the hospital and administrative appointments noted
`
`above, I am also currently Lead Physician for the GI division at the Hospital of the
`
`University of Pennsylvania, and have clinical privileges in the Division of
`
`Gastroenterology, at Penn Medicine at Radnor, Radnor, Pennsylvania, and
`
`Presbyterian Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
`
`8.
`
`From 2001 to 2005, I served on the FDA advisory board for
`
`gastroenterology, where my duties included participating in advisory meetings that
`
`are open to the public for matters pertaining to FDA approval of new drugs,
`
`including PPIs.
`
`9.
`
`I hold numerous professional society memberships. These include the
`
`American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), in which I have held many
`
`leadership positions; the American College of Gastroenterology; and the North
`
`American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, in which I am a member of the Board
`
`of Directors. I previously represented the AGA on the American Board of Internal
`
`Medicine Liaison Committee on Recertification.
`
`10.
`
`I have held several editorial positions for peer-reviewed medical
`
`journals, including Gastroenterology and the American Journal of
`
`Gastroenterology. I also serve as a reviewer for several medical journals. I have
`
`
`
`6
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 6
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`lectured by invitation over 400 times, and have published over 100 scientific
`
`articles in peer-reviewed journals, and over 100 abstracts. I lecture annually to the
`
`second year students at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of
`
`Pennsylvania on the pathophysiology of the stomach. I also lecture annually on
`
`the physiology and pathophysiology of gastroduodenal diseases and upper GI
`
`bleeding at the premier board review course for Gastroenterology in Washington,
`
`D.C.
`
`11. A copy of my curriculum vitae, which lists my publications and
`
`describes my qualifications in detail is Exhibit A, attached hereto.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`In forming my opinions set forth in this declaration, I considered and
`12.
`
`relied upon my education, background, and years of experience in the practice of
`
`medicine in the field of gastroenterology, including treating many patients and
`
`conducting numerous clinical trials, as well as the materials listed on Exhibit B, or
`
`identified in this declaration, and cited herein.
`
`C.
`13.
`
`Scope of Work
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Mylan in connection with this
`
`matter. I am being compensated for my consulting work at the rate of $700 per
`
`hour. My compensation in this case is in no way dependent on the outcome of the
`
`case.
`
`
`
`7
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 7
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`14.
`
`It is my opinion that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to administer a combination dosage form containing the NSAID
`
`naproxen and the PPI esomeprazole, prior to the earliest patent application filing
`
`date to which the ’698 patent claims priority, September 9, 2008, that results in the
`
`pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (or “PK / PD”) values recited in the
`
`claims. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have known that the
`
`combination of naproxen and esomeprazole at the claimed dosages had been
`
`patented in the same multilayer structure as the dosage form described and claimed
`
`in the ’698 patent.
`
`15. To the extent the Patent Owners argue that the precise PK / PD values
`
`in the claims were not known prior to the ’698 patent was filed, it is my
`
`understanding that Mylan’s expert on PK / PD, Dr. Michael Mayersohn, explains
`
`in his declaration supporting Mylan’s petition (Ex. 1003), that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to target the claimed PK / PD
`
`values recited in the claims because these values were known to be in the effective
`
`range. Dr. Mayersohn also explains that the person having ordinary skill would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been routine to
`
`make and test the prior art formulation at the claimed dosages of 500 mg naproxen
`
`and 20 mg esomeprazole because the prior art formulation is already claimed for
`
`
`
`8
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 8
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`these dosages. See Ex. 1003. Therefore, the method of administration recited in
`
`the claims is anticipated or obvious over the prior art to the person having ordinary
`
`skill.
`
`16.
`
`It is also my opinion that there is no evidence of unexpected results or
`
`industry skepticism for the claimed method of administration because the
`
`formulation that results in the claimed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic
`
`values, and a method for administering it were already patented. And even if the
`
`Patent Owners could establish that a long-felt, unmet need has been met, that need
`
`would have been met by the prior art patents on the same drug.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`17. Counsel has informed me of certain legal principles to guide me in my
`
`analysis. Counsel has informed me that Mylan carries the burden of proving
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and that this means Mylan
`
`must show that unpatentability is more probable than not.
`
`18. Counsel has informed me that the question of whether the claims of a
`
`patent are anticipated or obvious is to be considered from the perspective of the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Whether an invention would have been
`
`anticipated or obvious is ascertained at the time the invention was made.
`
`19. Counsel has informed me that an obviousness analysis involves
`
`ascertaining the scope and content of the prior art, the level of the person of
`
`
`
`9
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 9
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art and whether there are additional factors present that may
`
`nevertheless weigh against obviousness such as unexpected results attributable to
`
`the invention or whether the invention has met a long-felt, but unmet need.
`
`20. Counsel has informed me that under the existing law an invention
`
`may be found obvious:
`
`When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options
`within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated
`success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill
`and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was
`obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.
`
`21. Counsel has informed me that a prior art reference may anticipate a
`
`claimed invention if the prior art reference discloses each of the claim elements
`
`either expressly or inherently. A claim element is inherent in the anticipating
`
`reference if that element, or characteristic, is the natural result that flows from the
`
`reference’s explicit limitations.
`
`22. Counsel has also informed me that when a composition is claimed in
`
`terms of its function, property, or characteristics that it possesses, and that
`
`
`
`10
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 10
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`composition is in the prior art, that the claimed invention may be anticipated or
`
`obvious in view of the prior art reference.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`23. The field of art here involves the knowledge of a medical doctor and
`
`that of a pharmacologist or pharmacokineticist with experience in dosage form
`
`design and evaluation. Thus, the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`collaboration between a pharmacologist or pharmacokineticist having a Ph.D.
`
`degree or equivalent training, or a M.S. degree with at least 2 years of some
`
`experience in dosage form design and in in vitro and in vivo evaluation of dosage
`
`form performance, and a medical doctor having at least 2 years of practical
`
`experience treating patients in the gastroenterology field.
`
`24. For the purposes of this report, I will be offering my opinion from the
`
`perspective of the physician described above as of September 9, 2008, i.e., a
`
`medical doctor in the field of gastroenterology with at least 2 years of experience
`
`treating patients.
`
`V. BACKGROUND ON NSAID-RELATED GASTRIC INJURY
`25. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, commonly referred to as
`
`“NSAIDs,” are a class of drugs used to treat pain and inflammation, including pain
`
`and inflammation associated with arthritis. The class includes aspirin, naproxen,
`
`ibuprofen, and diclofenac. NSAIDs are among the most commonly prescribed
`
`
`
`11
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 11
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`medications in the world and have been in use for a long time. Naproxen was first
`
`approved by the FDA in 1976 under the trade name Naprosyn. Ex 1020, 1.
`
`26. NSAIDs can cause a variety of side effects that vary in severity.
`
`Chronic use of NSAIDs to treat chronic conditions such as arthritis can increase
`
`the risk of more serious gastric (stomach) injury, such as stomach erosions and
`
`ulcers, and more serious complications such as bleeding, perforation, or
`
`obstruction that can lead to hospitalization or death. These NSAID-induced side
`
`effects are commonly called NSAID-related injury or gastropathy.
`
`27. Long-term NSAID use may cause systemic injury by reducing the
`
`amount of prostaglandin in a patient’s body, which is a chemical required for
`
`proper maintenance of the stomach’s protective mucosal layer. This reduction
`
`decreases the stomach’s protective layer and increases the risk of gastric injury.
`
`This injury can be reduced by controlling acid in the stomach through concomitant
`
`administration of a prophylactic acid inhibitor with the NSAID.
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,220,698 (Ex. 1001)
`I have read U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 (“the ’698 patent”), entitled
`28.
`
`“Method for Delivering a Pharmaceutical Composition to Patient in Need
`
`Thereof.” The ’698 patent was filed on September 3, 2009, and claims priority to
`
`provisional application no. 61/095,584, filed on September 9, 2008. The inventors
`
`are listed as: Brian Ault, Mark Sostek, Everardus Orlemans, and John Plachetka.
`
`
`
`12
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 12
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`29. The ’698 patent “is directed to a method for delivering a
`
`pharmaceutical composition to a patient in need thereof, comprising:
`
`administering to said patient a pharmaceutical composition in unit dose form
`
`comprising naproxen . . . and esomeprazole.” Ex. 1001, 1:13-17.
`
`30. The ’698 patent explains that “[o]ver 15 million Americans take
`
`nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) each day as a treatment for pain or
`
`inflammation,” and that “NSAIDs are associated with a high incidence of
`
`gastrointestinal complications, including gastritis, dyspepsia, gastroduodenal
`
`ulcers, perforations, and bleeding.” Id. at 1:19-24.
`
`31. The ’698 patent also explains that proton pump inhibitors (“PPI”),
`
`such as esomeprazole, are effective at improving NSAID tolerability, and work by
`
`inhibiting stomach acid secretion. Id. at 1:27-37. Cited as one example is the prior
`
`art U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 (discussed in detail below), which “is directed to [a]
`
`dosage form comprising a [PPI and] . . . an NSAID,” and “can be effective in
`
`improving NSAID tolerability through dosages of esomeprazole and naproxen that
`
`produce the desired pharmacodynamic response and pharmacokinetic values.” Id.
`
`32. According to the ’698 patent, “[t]here is a need for a clinically
`
`effective therapy that delivers to a patient in need thereof . . . esomeprazole . . . for
`
`a duration sufficient to achieve an intragastric pH of about 4 or greater and a
`
`plasma level of naproxen that is efficacious.” Id. at 1:42-48.
`
`
`
`13
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 13
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`33. The ’698 patent describes a series of embodiments in the form of
`
`pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic values that result from administering a
`
`unit dose form (i.e., a single tablet) containing naproxen and esomeprazole in the
`
`AM and PM. Id. at 6:46-24:20.
`
`34. The ’698 patent contains two examples. Example 1 describes a 9-day
`
`study of “twice daily oral administration of three PN400 formulations (enteric
`
`coated naproxen 500 mg combined with non-enteric coated esomeprazole 10, 20,
`
`or 30 mg) versus the effect of twice daily oral administration of a separate 500 mg
`
`non-enteric coated naproxen tablet and once daily oral administration of a separate
`
`EC[, i.e., enteric coated,] esomeprazole (20 mg) capsule (Nexium® 20 mg
`
`capsule).” Id. at 24:43-53. The study measured 24-hour intragastric pH and
`
`certain pharmacokinetic parameters.
`
`35. The ’698 patent states that “[t]he PN400 tablet is a multilayer tablet
`
`comprising an inner core of naproxen surrounded by a first layer comprising an
`
`enteric coating and a second layer comprising non-enteric coated esomeprazole.”
`
`Id. at 24:56-59.
`
`36. Example 2 describes a study that evaluated PN400 (delayed-release
`
`500 mg/immediate release esomeprazole 20 mg) tablet to administrations of EC
`
`naproxen (EC Naprosyn®) plus EC esomeprazole (Nexium®), or EC naproxen
`
`alone, or EC esomeprazole alone. Id. at 46:26-33.
`
`
`
`14
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 14
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`37. The ’698 patent contains seven (7) claims. Claim 1 is representative
`
`and recites:1
`
`1. A method for treating osteoarthritis, rheumatoid
`arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis comprising orally
`administering to a patient in need thereof an AM unit
`dose form and, 10 hours (±20%) later, a PM unit dose
`form, wherein:
`
`the AM and PM unit dose forms each comprises:
`naproxen, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
`in an amount to provide 500 mg of naproxen, and
`
`esomeprazole, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt
`thereof, in an amount to provide 20 mg of esomeprazole;
`
`said esomeprazole, or pharmaceutically acceptable salt
`thereof, is released from said AM and PM unit dose
`forms at a pH of 0 or greater,
`
`the AM and PM unit dose forms target:
`
`i) a pharmacokinetic (pk) profile for naproxen where:
`
`
`1 The ’698 patent contains a certificate of correction. The claim recitation above
`
`contains the corrections that appear on the certificate.
`
`
`
`15
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 15
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`a) for the AM dose of naproxen, the mean Cmax is 86.2
`μg/mL (±20%) and the median Tmax is 3.0 hours
`(±20%); and
`b) for the PM dose of naproxen, the mean Cmax is 76.8
`μg/mL (±20%) and the median Tmax is 10 hours
`(±20%); and
`
`
`ii) a pharmacokinetic (pk) profile for esomeprazole
`where:
`a) for the AM dose of esomeprazole, the mean area
`under the plasma concentration-time curve from
`when the AM dose is administered to 10 hours
`(±20%) after the AM dose is administered (AUC0-
`10,am) is 1216 hr*ng/mL (±20%),
`b) for the PM dose of esomeprazole, the mean area
`under the plasma concentration-time curve from
`when the PM dose is administered to 14 hours
`(±20%) after the PM dose is administered (AUC0-
`14,pm) is 919 hr*ng/mL (±20%), and
`c) the total mean area under the plasma concentration-
`time curve for esomeprazole from when the AM
`dose is administered to 24 hours (±20%) after the
`AM dose is administered (AUC0-24) is 2000 hr*ng/
`mL (±20%); and
`
`
`the AM and PM unit dose forms further target a mean %
`time at which intragastric pH remains at about 4.0 or
`
`
`
`16
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 16
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`greater for about a 24 hour period after reaching steady
`state that is at least about 60%.
`
`
`
`38. Claims 2-7 recite additional elements that relate to the intragastric pH
`
`levels, the length of administration of the dosage forms, structural aspects of the
`
`dosage form, and chemical makeup of the tablet.
`
`VII. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 (Ex. 1004)
`39. U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 (“the ’907 patent,” Ex. 1004) issued on
`
`August 9, 2005, from application no. 10/158,216, that was filed on May 31, 2002.
`
`The ’907 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on June 1, 2001.
`
`Ex. 1004, cover page. John Plachetka is listed as the inventor.
`
`40. The ’907 patent concerns treatments for the risks of gastrointestinal
`
`ulcers and bleeding associated with long-term treatment with NSAIDs. Id. at 1:22-
`
`40. The ’907 patent specification also recognizes that the problem of NSAID-
`
`induced gastropathy (such as the development of gastroduodenal ulcers and other
`
`gastric injury) was well known in the art. Id. at 1:22-40.
`
`41. The ’907 patent notes that “more potent and longer lasting inhibitors,
`
`such as proton pump inhibitors, are thought to be more protective during chronic
`
`administration of NSAIDs than shorter acting agents” because gastric acidity was
`
`
`
`17
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 17
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`known to play such a significant role in the development of gastroduodenal lesions.
`
`Id. at 1:41-44, 1:26-34 (citing studies of effective treatment with acid inhibitors).
`
`42. The ’907 patent goes on to note that it would have been well known to
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the claimed priority date of June 1,
`
`2001, that unit dosage forms combining NSAIDs and PPIs were present in the art
`
`and were effective at reducing NSAID-induced gastropathy, even in the absence of
`
`coordinated release:
`
`Recognizing the potential benefits of PPIs for the prevention of
`NSAID-induced gastroduodenal damage, others have disclosed
`strategies for combining the two active agents for therapeutic
`purposes.
`
`Id. at 2:21-24 (emphasis added).
`
`43. According to the ’907 patent applicant, however, the earlier-patented
`
`formulations had two drawbacks: (1) no coordinated release; and (2) no reduction
`
`in gastric acid levels before release of the NSAID:
`
`However, these suggestions do not provide for coordinated release or
`for reducing intragastric acid levels to a non-toxic level prior to the
`release of NSAID (U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,204,118; 5,417,980; 5,466,436;
`5,037,815).
`
`Id. at 2:24-28.
`
`
`
`18
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 18
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`44. According to the Detailed Description of the Invention in the ’907
`
`patent, the “present invention is based upon the discovery of improved
`
`pharmaceutical compositions for administering NSAIDs to patients.” Id. at 5:12-
`
`14. The “compositions include acid inhibitors that are capable of raising the pH of
`
`the GI tract . . . and provide for the coordinated release of therapeutic agents, i.e.,
`
`for the sequential release of acid inhibitor followed by [NSAID].” Id. at 5:15-19;
`
`see also, e.g., id. at Abstract, 1:11-18, 4:47-51.
`
`45. Regarding the mechanism for formulating the claimed dosage forms,
`
`the ’907 patent concedes that “[m]ethods for making appropriate formulations are
`
`well known in the art.” Id. at 5:40-43 (citing a leading treatise, Remington’s
`
`Pharmaceutical Sciences (16th ed. 1980)).
`
`46. Figure 2 of the ’907 patent depicts a schematic example of the
`
`claimed composition:
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 19
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`47.
`
`“FIG. 2 illustrates a three layer dosage form. An acid inhibitor . . . is
`
`released immediately after ingestion by a patient in order to raise the pH of the
`
`[GI] tract to above a specific pH, e.g., above 4. The innermost layer contains
`
`naproxen. Thus, the dosage form has a naproxen core, an enteric film coat and an
`
`acid inhibitor film coat.” Id. at 5:1-7.
`
`48. The ’907 patent also teaches the administration of the disclosed
`
`formulation to patients. In particular, the specification describes “administering
`
`[the] coordinated release . . . dosage form to achieve pain and symptom relief with
`
`a reduced risk of developing gastrointestinal damage . . . .” Id. at Abstract; see
`
`also, e.g., id. at 1:11-18, 3:5-7, 3:14-17, 4:18-20, 4:28-31, 4:53-60, claims 51 & 52.
`
`49. Claim 1 of the ’907 patent recites:
`
`1. A pharmaceutical composition in unit dosage form
`suitable for oral administration to a patient, comprising:
`
`(a) an acid inhibitor present in an amount effective to
`raise the gastric pH of said patient to at least 3.5 upon the
`administration of one or more of said unit dosage forms;
`
`(b) a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in an
`amount effective to reduce or eliminate pain or
`inflammation in said patient upon administration of one
`or more of said unit dosage forms; and
`
`
`
`20
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 20
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`
`wherein said unit dosage form provides for coordinated
`release such that:
`
`i) said NSAID is surrounded by a coating that, upon
`ingestion of said unit dosage form by said patient,
`prevents the release of essentially any NSAID from said
`dosage form unless the pH of the surrounding medium is
`3.5 or higher;
`
`ii) at least a portion of said acid inhibitor is not
`surrounded by an enteric coating and, upon ingestion of
`said unit dosage form by said patient, is released
`regardless of whether the pH of the surrounding medium
`is below 3.5 or above 3.5.
`
`
`
`
`
`50. Claim 5 recites:
`
`5. The pharmaceutical composition of claim 1, wherein
`said acid inhibitor is a proton pump inhibitor selected
`from the group consisting of: omeprazole, esomeprazole,
`lansoprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 8,557,285 (Ex. 1005)
`51. U.S. Patent No. 8,557,285 (“the ’285 patent,” Ex. 1005) issued on
`
`October 15, 2013, from application no. 13/215,855, filed on August 23, 2011. The
`
`’285 patent claims priority to the same provisional application as the ’907 patent.
`
`
`
`21
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 21
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`Ex. 1005, cover page. Like the ’907 patent, John Plachetka is the only named
`
`inventor.
`
`52. My review of the ’285 patent indicates that the specification of the
`
`’285 patent is nearly identical to the specification of the ’907 patent. Because the
`
`same language appears in the specification of the ’285 patent that is discussed
`
`above with respect to the ’907 patent (with some variation in the column and line
`
`numbers), that discussion will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the ’285
`
`patent discloses the same pharmaceutical composition and methods of treatment
`
`disclosed in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:16-18 (“The present invention
`
`is based upon the discovery of improved pharmaceutical compositions for
`
`administering NSAIDs to patients.”); id. at 6:18-23 (“In addition to containing one
`
`or more NSAIDs, the compositions include acid inhibitors that are capable of
`
`raising the pH of the GI tract . . . and provide for the coordinated release of
`
`therapeutic agents, i.e., for the sequential release of acid inhibitor followed by
`
`[NSAID].”); id. at 6:44-45 (“Methods for making appropriate formulations are
`
`well known in the art.”); id. at Fig. 2; id. at 6:5-10 (“FIG. 2 illustrates a three layer
`
`dosage form. An acid inhibitor . . . is released immediately after ingestion by a
`
`patient in order to raise the pH of the [GI] tract to above a specific pH, e.g., above
`
`4. The innermost layer contains naproxen. Thus, the dosage form has a naproxen
`
`core, an enteric film coat and an acid inhibitor film coat.”); id. at Abstract
`
`
`
`22
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 22
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT 1002 – DECLARATION OF DAVID C. METZ, M.D.
`
`(describing “administering [the] coordinated release . . . dosage form to achieve
`
`pain and symptom relief with a reduced risk of developing gastrointestinal damage
`
`. . . .”); id.at 3:14-20.
`
`53. The ’285 patent contains four (4) claims.
`
`54. Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A pharmaceutical composition in unit dosage form
`comprising therapeutically effective amounts of:
`(a) esomeprazole, wherein at least a portion of said
`esomeprazole is not surrounded by an enteric coating;
`and
`(b) naproxen surrounded by a coating that inhibits its
`release from said unit dosage form unless said dosage
`form is in a medium with a

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket