Paper No. ________
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`MYLAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 9,724,310
`
`Title: TRANSDERMAL ESTROGEN DEVICE AND DELIVERY
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00173
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Overview of the ’310 Patent and Prosecution History .................................... 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. Technological Background .............................................................................. 6
`A.
`Transdermal Drug Delivery and Drug Flux .......................................... 6
`B.
`Developing Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems ................................ 8
`C.
`Coat Weight Was Not Known To Impact Flux ................................... 13
`1.
`Kim (EX1010) Does Not Evidence A General Understanding 15
`2.
`Ghosh (EX1014) Does Not Evidence A General Understanding18
`3.
`Bronaugh (EX1026) Is Not Related to TDSs ........................... 18
`4.
`Chien (EX1009) Does Not Support Petitioner’s Case .............. 19
`5. Mueller (EX1005) Did Not Recognize
`Coat Weight To Impact Flux .................................................... 21
`Estradiol Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems .................................. 22
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 24
`A.
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 24
`B.
`“About”................................................................................................ 24
`C.
`“Coat Weight” ..................................................................................... 25
`D.
`“Flux” .................................................................................................. 26
`E.
`“Therapeutically Effective Amount” .................................................. 29
`
`VI. Standard for Institution .................................................................................. 29
`
`VII. The Cited References ..................................................................................... 30
`A. Mueller (EX1005) ............................................................................... 30
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Vivelle-Dot® Label (EX1006) ............................................................ 33
`Kanios (EX1007) ................................................................................. 34
`Chien (EX1009) .................................................................................. 36
`
`VIII. Petitioner Failed To Satisfy 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.61(c) and 42.65(b)
`For The Figures Relied Upon ........................................................................ 36
`
`IX. Grounds 1-4 Improperly Rely On Petitioner’s Own Interpretations
`Of Figures ...................................................................................................... 38
`
`X.
`
`The Petition Does Not Demonstrate A Reasonable Likelihood Of
`Unpatentability Based On Ground 1 ............................................................. 39
`A.
`Petitioner has not carried its burden of establishing a reasonable
`likelihood of anticipation of claims 1, 2, 8, and 10-15 by Mueller
`Example 3. ........................................................................................... 40
`1. Mueller Does Not Disclose Or Show That Example 3 Achieved
`The Claimed Estradiol Flux ...................................................... 40
`2. Mueller Example 3 Did Not Use A Control ............................. 42
`3. Mueller Presents Fig. 3 Qualitatively and Imprecisely ............ 43
`
`XI. Petitioner has not carried its burden of establishing a reasonable
`likelihood that claims 1-2 and 8-15 are obvious in view of Mueller and
`the Vivelle-Dot® Label for Ground 2 ........................................................... 47
`
`XII. Petitioner has not carried its burden of establishing a reasonable
`likelihood that claims 3-7 are obvious in view of Mueller, the Vivelle-
`Dot® Label and Kanios for Ground 3 ........................................................... 49
`A.
`Petitioner has not shown the requisite motivation or
`reasonable expectation of success ....................................................... 49
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A POSA would have been discouraged from attempting Petitioner’s
`asserted modifications of Mueller ....................................................... 51
`Petitioner relies on an invalid comparison of Mueller and Kanios ..... 52
`
`XIII. Petitioner has not carried its burden of establishing a reasonable
`likelihood of obviousness of claims 1-15 in view of Mueller, the
`Vivelle-Dot® Label, Kanios, and Chien for Ground 4 ................................. 55
`
`XIV. The Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Because the
`Primary References Were Considered During Prosecution .......................... 57
`
`XV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`XVI. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1) .......... 61
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`In re Magnum Oil Tools International,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 47
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................... 25, 29
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 49, 55
`
`Continental Can Co. U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 39, 40, 43
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................ 47
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l,
`222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 38, 57
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 24
`
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... 47
`
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) ............................................................................ 39
`
`In re Wright,
`569 F.2d 1124 (CCPA 1976) ................................................................... 39, 41
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................... 38, 40, 57
`
`RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc..
`730 F.2d 1440, 1446 (1984) ............................................................................ 46
`
`United States v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39 (1966) .......................................................................................... 47
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ........................................................................ 39
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................ 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................... 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................... 2, 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................ 47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................. 57, 58, 59
`
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)........................................................................................... 24
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.61(c) ...................................................................................... 37, 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ................................................................................................. 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b) ...................................................................................... 37, 38
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 ................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Reviews
`
`Alarm.com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01967 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2016) ......................................................... 58
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00483 (PTAB July 15, 2015) .......................................................... 58
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2016) ................................................... 57, 59
`
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1, B.V.,
`IPR2016-01309 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) .......................................................... 59
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex #
`
`2001
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Dr. Adrian C. Williams
`
`2002
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Adrian C. Williams
`
`2003 Minivelle® Product Label
`
`2004
`
`J. Hadgraft and R. Guy, Feasibility Assessment in Topical and
`Transdermal Delivery, in TRANSDERMAL DRUG DELIVERY 3-4 (R.
`Guy & J. Hadgraft eds., 2d ed. 2003)
`
`2005
`
`J. Hadgraft, Passive enhancement strategies in topical and
`transdermal drug delivery, 184 INT’L J. PHARMACEUTICS 1-6 (1999)
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`B. Barry, Transdermal Drug Delivery, in AULTON’S PHARMACEUTICS
`– THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF MEDICINES 565, 571-72, 577
`(M. Aulton ed., 3d ed. 2007)
`
`A. Williams & B. Barry, Urea analogues in propylene glycol as
`penetration enhancers in human skin, 36 INT’L J. PHARMACEUTICS
`43-50 (1989)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex #
`
`2008
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Description
`
`K. Brain & R. Chilcott, Physicochemical Factors Affecting Skin
`Absorption, in PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF SKIN TOXICOLOGY 83-92
`(R. Chilcott and S. Price eds., 2008)
`
`2009
`
`Esclim® Product Label
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`J. Mantelle, et al., Effect of Silicone/Acrylic PSA Blends on Skin
`Permeation, 26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
`CONTROLLED RELEASE OF BIOACTIVE MATERIALS 415-16 (Rev. July
`1999) (“the Mantelle Article”)
`
`A. Williams & B. Barry, Chemical Permeation Enhancement, in
`ENHANCEMENT IN DRUG DELIVERY 233, 248-50 (E. Touitou & B.
`Barry eds., 2007)
`
`A. Williams & B. Barry, The enhancement index concept applied to
`terpene penetration enhancers for human skin and model lipophilic
`(oestradiol) and hydrophilic (5-fluorouracil) drugs, 74 INT’L J.
`PHARMACEUTICS 157-168 (1991)
`
`K. Walters & K. Brain, Dematological Formulation and Transdermal
`Systems, in DEMATOLOGICAL AND TRANSDERMAL FORMULATIONS
`338-43 (K. Walters, ed., 2002)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex #
`
`2014
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Description
`
`Google Scholar search results obtained March 7, 2018 – citations of
`Kim et al., Penetration Enhancement of β2-Selective Agonist,
`Tulobuterol, Across Hairless Mouse Skin, J. Pharm. Invest. 33: 79-84
`(2003), available online at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=
`7903453726087495818&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
`
`2015
`
`A. Ghosh et al., Current Pharmaceutical Design on Adhesive Based
`Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems, 21 CURR. PHARM. DESIGN
`2771-2783 (2015)
`
`2016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,029,820
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`B. Godin & E. Touitou, Transdermal skin delivery: Predictions for
`humans from in vivo, ex vivo and animal models, 59(11) ADV. DRUG
`DELIV. REVIEWS 1152-1161 (2007)
`
`R. Hinz et al., In vitro percutaneous penetration: evaluation of the
`utility of hairless mouse skin, 93(1) J. INVEST. DERMATOL. 87-91
`(1989)
`
`J. Bond & B. Barry, Hairless mouse skin is limited as a model for
`assessing the effects of penetration enhancers in human skin, 90(6) J.
`INVEST. DERMATOL. 810-813 (1988)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex #
`
`2020
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Description
`
`R. Subedi et al., Influence of formulation variable in transdermal
`drug delivery system containing zolmitriptan, 419 INT’L J.
`PHARMACEUTICS 209-214 (2011)
`
`2021
`
`R. Subedi et al., Formulation and in vitro evaluation of transdermal
`drug delivery system for donezil, 42 J. PHARMA. INVEST. 1-7 (2012)
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`J. Mantelle, DOT Matrix® Technology, in MODIFIED RELEASE DRUG
`DELIVERY TECHNOLOGY 405-14 (Rathbone et al. eds., 2d ed. 2008)
`(“the Mantelle Chapter”)
`
`J. van de Sandt et al., In vitro predictions of skin absorption of
`caffeine, testosterone, and benzoic acid: a multi-centre comparison
`study, 39 REG. TOXICOL. PHARMACOL 271–281 (2004)
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Patent Owner submits this preliminary response under 35 U.S.C. § 313 to
`
`Mylan Technologies, Inc.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request for inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,310 (“the ’310 Patent,” EX1001). This
`
`preliminary response is timely filed within three months of the Board’s notice
`
`according a filing date (IPR2018-00173, Paper No. 4), mailed December 13, 2017.
`
`For the reasons set forth herein and supported by the cited exhibits, Petitioner’s
`
`request for IPR should be denied.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’310 Patent generally relate to monolithic
`
`estradiol transdermal drug delivery systems ( “patches” or “TDSs”) that deliver
`
`estradiol through the skin at a particular rate (“flux”). These claims cover Patent
`
`Owner’s FDA approved MINIVELLE® product, which is a transdermal patch
`
`applied twice weekly for the treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms
`
`due to menopause and the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. EX2003, 1.
`
`Minivelle® is the smallest FDA-approved estradiol patch, and offers patients
`
`advantages such as reduced skin irritation and better aesthetics. EX1001, 2:3-5.
`
`Petitioner is seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Patent Owner’s
`
`MINIVELLE® product. See, e.g., Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan
`
`Technologies Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1-17-01777 (D. Del.).
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Petitioner alleges the claims of the ’310 Patent are either anticipated or
`
`rendered obvious by one or more cited references, but each asserted ground of
`
`unpatentability is fatally flawed. With regard to both anticipation and obviousness,
`
`Petitioner cannot make out its case based on express teachings of the cited
`
`references, but improperly relies on unsupported interpretations of figures and
`
`other inferences that go far beyond what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood. With regard to motivation and expectation of success,
`
`Petitioner’s positions are contrary to what was understood in the art, including
`
`positions contrary to previous writings by its own expert.
`
`To justify institution, Petitioner must demonstrate that there is a “reasonable
`
`likelihood” that it will prevail as to at least one of the claims challenged. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a). Petitioner has not meet this standard, because Petitioner relies on
`
`“teachings” that are not disclosed in the cited references and mischaracterizations
`
`of the cited references and what was known in the art. Petitioner’s arguments are
`
`contradicted by its own references and its own expert’s previous writings.
`
`Accordingly institution should be denied.
`
`II. Overview of the ’310 Patent and Prosecution History
`
`The ’310 Patent issued from U.S. patent application no. 14/024,985 (“the
`
`’985 application”), which was a continuation of U.S. patent application no.
`
`13/553,972 (now U.S. 9,730,900), which was a continuation of U.S. patent
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`application no. 12/216,811 (now U.S. 8,231,906). The ’985 Application was filed
`
`on September 12, 2013, and issued on September 8, 2017. EX1001, 1. The claims
`
`of the’310 Patent are directed to monolithic TDSs for delivering estradiol.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’310 Patent (the sole independent claim) recites:
`
`1. A monolithic transdermal drug delivery system for estradiol,
`
`consisting of (i) a backing layer, (ii) a single adhesive polymer
`
`matrix layer defining an active surface area and, optionally, (iii)
`
`a release liner, wherein the single adhesive polymer matrix
`
`layer comprises an adhesive polymer matrix comprising
`
`estradiol as the only drug, wherein the adhesive polymer matrix
`
`layer has a coat weight of greater than about 10 mg/cm2 and
`
`includes greater than 0.156 mg/cm2 estradiol, and the system
`
`achieves an estradiol flux of from about 0.0125 to about 0.05
`
`mg/cm2 /day, based on the active surface area.
`
`A “monolithic” system is one in which the drug and adhesive are part of the same
`
`layer. EX1001, 6:49-53. These drug-in-adhesive systems consist of (i) a backing
`
`layer, (ii) a drug-in-adhesive polymer matrix layer, and, optionally, (iii) a
`
`protective release liner that is removed before application. EX1004, 413.
`
`During prosecution of the ’985 application, the claims were rejected as
`
`allegedly obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,638,528 (EX1030; “Kanios ’528”); in
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 4,624,665 (EX1031; “Nuwayser”); and allegedly obvious
`
`over Kanios ’528 and Nuwayser further in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2009/0041831 (EX1032; “Miller”). EX1004, 94-103.
`
`Patent Owner overcame these rejections with arguments and clarifying claim
`
`amendments. The Examiner subsequently allowed the claims in the Notice of
`
`Allowance mailed September 15, 2016, which included an Examiner’s amendment
`
`to correct a typographical error in the preamble of the claims. EX1004, 253-260.
`
`Following receipt of the September 2016 Notice of Allowance, Patent
`
`Owner filed a Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”) in order to obtain
`
`consideration of information disclosure statements (“IDSs”). EX1004, 276-281,
`
`316-321. After consideration of each IDS, the Examiner issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance with similar reasons for allowance. Id., 288-294, 322-328. With the
`
`final RCE, Patent Owner presented a new dependent claim that was granted as
`
`claim 15. Id., 365-372.
`
`After the final RCE, Patent Owner conducted an interview with the
`
`Examiner and submitted the Declaration Under 37 CFR § 1.132 of Dr. Richard H.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`Guy (the “Guy Declaration”)1. EX1004, 378-380, 409-437. In his declaration, Dr.
`
`Guy explained the state of the art and presented experimental data of unexpected
`
`results. Dr. Guy attested that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`thought of coat weight as a parameter to be adjusted to affect the flux of a drug
`
`from a transdermal patch” and that none of the art of record “suggests that
`
`increasing coat weight would increase flux.” EX1004, 435-436. Dr. Guy also
`
`attested that the only predictable way to increase drug flux from a TDS is to
`
`increase the size of the TDS. Id., 436. Dr. Guy also presented experimental data
`
`showing the unexpected result embodied in the claimed subject matter, that
`
`increasing the coat weight of the drug-containing polymer matrix of the monolithic
`
`estradiol TDS increased flux. Id., 423-432.
`
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued the final Notice of Allowance. EX1004,
`
`526-533. The Examiner explained that “[t]he prior art does not teach nor
`
`
`1 Dr. Guy is a professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Bath (UK)
`
`in the Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology and has more than 30 years’
`
`research experience in the field of topical and transdermal drug delivery, including
`
`the study of drug absorption into and through the skin. He has co-authored more
`
`than 350 peer-reviewed articles and over 70 book chapters, and served as the
`
`Associate Editor of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences from 2002-2007.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`reasonably suggest the claimed monolithic transdermal drug delivery system,” and
`
`separately noted that “Applicant’s arguments of unexpected results…are
`
`persuasive.” Id., 531-532.
`
`III. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner alleges that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would
`
`have “an advanced degree…in pharmaceutical chemistry, physical chemistry,
`
`bioengineering, or a drug delivery related disciple” or, alternatively, “a bachelor’s
`
`degree plus two to five years’ experience in the transdermal delivery industry.”
`
`Petition, 15.
`
`Without acquiescing to Petitioner’s definition, Patent Owner is willing to
`
`adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Preliminary Response, with the
`
`clarification that a POSA who does not have an advanced degree in the fields
`
`mentioned would have a bachelor’s degree in a field related to drug delivery.
`
`EX2001, ¶¶26-28.
`
`IV. Technological Background
`
`A. Transdermal Drug Delivery and Drug Flux
`
`The flux of a drug is the rate at which it diffuses through the skin. EX2001,
`
`¶¶40-42. A TDS intended to be applied for an extended period, such as for 3 days,
`
`ideally would exhibit a “zero-order” flux profile over the intended application
`
`period, reflecting delivery of a uniform dose over time. EX2001, ¶49; EX1007,
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`¶11. On the other hand, a flux profile that exhibits an increase in flux followed by a
`
`more rapid decrease is referred to as a “first-order” flux profile, and is not desirable
`
`for a TDS intended to be applied for an extended period. EX2001, ¶49; EX1007,
`
`¶7.
`
`While the flux of transdermal drug delivery system is an in vivo property, it
`
`is measured by in vitro methodology, such as in vitro skin permeation studies using
`
`human cadaver skin, as illustrated in Example 1 of the ’310 Patent. EX2001, ¶¶,
`
`46-47; EX1001, 15:10-47; EX1004, 416-417. In such studies, the amount of drug
`
`delivered through the skin sample over time is measured and used to calculate flux.
`
`EX2001, ¶¶48-50. Because data collected at initial time points usually reflect a lag
`
`time, values from a time period once steady state is reached are used to calculate
`
`flux. Id.
`
`When assessing the flux of a TDS, it is essential to account for variations in
`
`skin permeability, because there can be a large variation in permeability between
`
`different skin samples. EX1004, 433; EX2001, ¶50. The impact of skin
`
`permeability on flux and the use of well-known techniques to account for this
`
`factor is illustrated in the Guy Declaration submitted during prosecution of the
`
`’310 Patent. EX1004, 433. The data presented in ¶¶41-42 of the Guy Declaration
`
`show a significant variation in flux (e.g., 1.5 to 2.5-fold higher) when the well-
`
`characterized Vivelle-Dot® formulation was tested on different human cadaver
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`skin samples. EX1004, 433-35. The flux observed for Vivelle-Dot® in those
`
`studies was not characteristic of Vivelle-Dot® per se, but reflected the higher than
`
`usual permeability of the skin samples used in the study. EX2001, ¶50. Dr. Brain
`
`acknowledges this “high amount of variability that routinely occurs in flux
`
`measurements.” EX1002, ¶¶50, 52, 157.
`
`As of July 10, 2008, a POSA understood that the passive flux of a drug from
`
`a TDS can be quantitatively described and modelled by Fick’s 1st law of diffusion:
`
`J = A x kp x ∆C
`
`where A is the active surface area of the patch, kp is the drug’s permeability
`
`coefficient across the skin (defined as kp = {D x K}/L, where D is the drug’s
`
`diffusivity through the skin, K is its partition coefficient, and L is the path length
`
`for diffusion across the skin), and ∆C is the difference in concentration of the drug
`
`between the patch (Cpatch) and the “downstream” side of the skin barrier
`
`(Cdownstream). EX1004, 413; EX2001, ¶¶42-43; EX2004, 3-4.
`
`B. Developing Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems
`
`The field of transdermal drug delivery is a highly unpredictable art. EX1002,
`
`¶157 (“[N]umbers associated with flux are highly variable.”); EX2001, ¶53. Dr.
`
`Brain himself has emphasized that the fact that “[s]kin absorption of chemicals is a
`
`passive process…does not mean that the process of dermal absorption is simple
`
`and highly predictable, as there are a diverse range of factors that can affect the
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`rate and extent to which a chemical is absorbed.” EX2008, 83. In fact, according to
`
`Dr. Brain:
`
`[O]ne could even imagine that the services of an astrologer may
`
`be a useful adjunct to predicting skin absorption!
`
`Id., 84.
`
`
`
`Fick’s 1st law indicates that there are four general ways to increase flux:
`
`(1) Increase the active surface area of the patch to cause a
`
`proportional change in flux.
`
`(2) Increase the drug concentration in the patch until it reaches
`
`its limiting solubility.
`
`(3) Adjust the formulation for a given drug loading such that
`
`the drug reaches its limiting solubility.
`
`(4) Introduce a penetration enhancer into the formulation to
`
`increase the drug’s diffusivity (D) and/or alter the value of its
`
`partition coefficient (K).
`
`EX1004, 413-415; EX2001, ¶¶44-45; EX2005, 2-5.
`
`Out of the four general ways to increase flux embodied in Fick’s 1st law, the
`
`only predictable way is to increase the active surface, i.e., increase the size of the
`
`patch. EX2001, ¶¶44, 52. This is because out of all the factors embodied in Fick’s
`
`1st law, only active surface area has a directly proportional impact on flux. Id. The
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`predictability of increasing flux by increasing patch size is reflected in commercial
`
`TDS products, where different doses of the same product are provided by different
`
`patch sizes. Id.; EX1006, 12; EX1016, 18; EX 1015, 5.
`
`Other ways of trying to increase flux are unpredictable, and must be tested
`
`empirically. EX2001, ¶¶53-54. This is illustrated in several references cited by
`
`Petitioner, including Kanios (EX1007), and U.S. Patent Nos. 5,656,286 (EX1011)
`
`and 6,024,976 (EX1033) (collectively, the “Miranda Patents”). EX2001, ¶¶54-58.
`
`For example, while it is generally expected that increasing drug concentration will
`
`have some positive impact on flux up to a point, this approach is useful only until
`
`the saturation concentration of the drug is reached. EX2001, ¶53. Increasing drug
`
`concentration beyond the saturation point can undermine other important patch
`
`properties. Id.; EX1007, ¶13; EX1019, 2:55-3:4; EX2005, 2.
`
`Other approaches are even more unpredictable. For example, increasing the
`
`silicone to acrylic polymer ratio in the drug-containing polymer matrix of an
`
`estradiol TDS has been reported to increase initial flux but shift the flux profile
`
`from a pseudo-zero-order to a first order delivery system, which is undesirable for
`
`a TDS intended to deliver a uniform dose over an extended period of time.
`
`EX2001, ¶¶54-56; EX2010, 415; see also EX1011, 40:66-41:3, 9-12; EX1033,
`
`40:43-47, 53-56. These results illustrate the unpredictable effects of adjusting even
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`one parameter of a TDS, and also illustrate the delicate balance and tension
`
`between increasing flux and sustaining flux. EX2001, ¶¶56, 60.
`
`Increasing drug solubility has a similarly unpredictable impact on flux. For
`
`example, when using soluble polyvinylpyrrolidone (“PVP”) to increase drug
`
`solubility, the Miranda Patents cited by Petitioner report that even though
`
`increasing amounts of PVP reduced crystal formation, the flux was “essentially the
`
`same.” EX1011, 50:65-51:5; EX1033, 50:66-51:6. This indicates that an approach
`
`that increases drug solubility will not necessarily impact flux. EX2001, ¶¶57-58.
`
`Despite these express teachings in Petitioner’s own exhibits, Petitioner
`
`inexplicably asserts that there was “a reasonable expectation of successfully
`
`increasing the flux” by increasing PVP. Petition, 51.
`
`Even the use of penetration enhancers is unpredictable, because the “best”
`
`enhancer for a given composition depends on the drug being formulated, the
`
`desired pharmacokinetic profile, and other components present in the composition.
`
`EX2001, ¶59; EX1011, 38:3-60:40; EX1033, 37:54-60:54; EX2012, 9-10. “It is
`
`difficult to select rationally a penetration enhancer for a given permeant…the level
`
`of enhancement expected for these agents is unpredictable.” EX2001, ¶59 (quoting
`
`EX2011, 248).
`
`Further complicating the development process is that the components of a
`
`polymer matrix can interact in unpredictable and undesirable ways. EX2001, ¶¶61-
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`62. Previous writings by Dr. Brain highlight this problem. See EX2013. For
`
`example, Dr. Brain explains that when the drug is mixed with the adhesive (as it is
`
`in a drug-containing polymer matrix), “the potential for interaction between drug
`
`and adhesive, which can lead to either a reduction of adhesive effectiveness, or the
`
`formation of a new chemical species, must be fully assessed.” EX2013, 339. He
`
`also cautions that “residual monomers, catalysts, plasticizers, and resins may react
`
`to give new chemical species,” and that “the excipients, including enhancers, or
`
`their reaction products, may interfere with adhesive systems.” Id. He identifies
`
`“three critical considerations in the selection of a particular system: adhesion to
`
`skin, compatibility with skin, and physical or chemical stability of total
`
`formulation and components.” Id. With respect to monolithic systems, like the
`
`ones claimed, Dr. Brain noted that their “simplicity is, however, deceptive and
`
`several factors, involving potential interaction between drug or enhancer and the
`
`adhesive, need to be considered,” including “chemical interactions resulting in
`
`interference with adhesive performance, breakdown of the active species, or
`
`formation of new chemical entities.” Id., 340. Dr. Brain’s failure to consider any
`
`of these complicating and “critical” factors in his analysis shows his opinions are
`
`not based on the perspective of a POSA.
`
`All of these adjustments can impact not just the magnitude of the drug flux
`
`curve, but also its shape. EX2001, ¶62. That is, increasing drug concentration,
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00173
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`adjusting the composition components, and using an enhancer can impact not only
`
`the dose of drug delivered, but also whether drug delivery is essentially zero-order
`
`over the target delivery period (as desired) or shifts to first-order delivery and then
`
`declines as illustrated in the Mantelle Article and Miranda Patents discussed above.
`
`Id. When all of these complicating and unpredictable factors are taken into
`
`account, it is no wonder Dr. Brain would suggest to “enlist the services of an
`
`astrologer.” EX2008, 84.
`
`C. Coat Weight Was Not Known To Impact Flux
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that it was known that increasing the coat weight of the
`
`drug-in-adhesive polymer matrix layer of a monolithic TDS would result in an
`
`increase in flux is wrong, unsupported by the references it relies on, and runs
`
`counter to Fick’s 1st law and the understanding of those skilled in the art of
`
`transdermal drug delivery. EX2001, ¶¶63-64.
`
`Nothing in Fick’s 1st law indicates or predicts that increasing the coat weight