`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`PURDUE PHARMA L.P.,
`THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., and
`PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.
`Patent Owners
`____________________
`Cases IPR2016-01027 and IPR2016-010281
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`_____________________
`(Exhibit 2097)
`
`DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN OSHLACK
`
`
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`heading.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`The Discovery of the ’976 Patent Invention .................................................... 4
`II.
`III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`
`I, Benjamin Oshlack, hereby declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration in support of Patent Owners Purdue Pharma
`
`L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., and Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.’s Response, and
`
`specifically, to attest to facts relating to the conception and reduction to practice of
`
`the invention claimed in U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976 (the “’976 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Pharmacy degree from Victorian College of
`
`Pharmacy in Melbourne, Australia, in 1972. For several years thereafter, I worked
`
`in retail pharmacy, including some time in Great Britain.
`
`3.
`
`In 1976, I joined Dagra, N.V., a small pharmaceutical company in the
`
`Netherlands that was associated with Purdue Frederick Company. At Dagra, I was
`
`the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Development department and was
`
`responsible for the development, scale-up, and manufacturing of new formulations.
`
`My work at Dagra primarily focused on immediate-release solid oral dosage forms,
`
`although it also included development of suspensions, creams, and extended-
`
`release products.
`
`4.
`
`In 1980, I was transferred to the company now known as Purdue
`
`Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”), at its Yonkers, New York site, which later moved to
`
`Ardsley, New York. For my first several years at Purdue, I was a scientist
`
`responsible for the development of solid dosage forms in the Pharmaceutical
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`Development department. This involved many of the same development, scale-up,
`
`and manufacturing activities I was involved with at Dagra. At Purdue, however, I
`
`began to develop a specialization in extended-release delivery systems, particularly
`
`for oral administration. Shortly after I arrived at Purdue, I was temporarily sent to
`
`an associated company in Scotland, Napp Pharmaceuticals, to train with them in
`
`the development of extended-release dosage forms. When I returned to the United
`
`States, I brought this expertise back to Purdue’s formulation development team and
`
`began to focus on extended-release dosage forms.
`
`5.
`
`In 1984, I was promoted to Director of the Pharmaceutical
`
`Development Solid Dosage Forms group at Purdue. Between 1986 and 1998, I
`
`was promoted several times, becoming the Director of the entire Pharmaceutical
`
`Development group, and ultimately being named the Executive Director of the
`
`group. During this time, I became responsible for all aspects of the development
`
`of all of Purdue’s new pharmaceutical dosage forms.
`
`6.
`
`It was also during this time that I and my team developed the original
`
`OxyContin® formulation. The original OxyContin® formulation was a 12-hour,
`
`extended-release formulation, and is described in Examples 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,508,042. (Ex. 2100.) I am a named inventor on this patent and on other
`
`patents covering the original OxyContin® product. (Id.; Ex. 2101; Ex. 2102; Ex.
`
`2103.) The original formulation was prepared by the following procedure: (1)
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`Eudragit® RS 30D and Triacetin® are combined and mixed at low shear to prepare
`
`a suspension; (2) oxycodone hydrochloride, lactose, and povidone are placed in a
`
`fluid bed granulator, and the suspension prepared in (1) is sprayed onto the powder
`
`in the fluid bed to prepare a granulation, which is then dried; (3) stearyl alcohol is
`
`heated to approximately 70 °C and then mixed with the warm granulation to wax-
`
`coat the granules; (4) after the waxed granulation is cooled, it is lubricated by
`
`blending with talc and magnesium stearate for approximately 3 minutes; and (5)
`
`the lubricated granulate is then compressed in a tableting machine. (Ex. 2100 at
`
`Examples 3, 4; see also id. at Tables 5, 7.) According to this manufacturing
`
`procedure, the oxycodone hydrochloride is contained inside the wax-coated
`
`granules, whereas the magnesium stearate and talc are on the outside as lubricant.
`
`7.
`
`The original OxyContin® product was approved by the FDA in
`
`December 1995 and entered the market in 1996. The original OxyContin®
`
`formulation was considered a significant advance at the time. In contrast to other
`
`oxycodone formulations that required administration every several hours to avoid
`
`break-through pain, OxyContin®’s formulation permitted patients to take a tablet
`
`only twice daily.
`
`8.
`
`It was also during this period, in 1991, that I received my Master of
`
`Science degree in Industrial Pharmacy from Long Island University in Brooklyn,
`
`New York. As part of my master’s program, I prepared a thesis based on research
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`I was conducting at Purdue. This thesis focused on the effect of surface area on
`
`extended-release dosage forms.
`
`9.
`
`In 1998, I was promoted to Vice President of Pharmaceutics. In this
`
`position, I continued to be responsible for all of the Pharmaceutical Development
`
`activities. I also worked with the development of products for outside the United
`
`States and coordinated research and development activities with Purdue’s
`
`international associated companies. In this position, approximately fifty
`
`employees reported to me, including approximately twenty formulators and the
`
`employees responsible for preparation and packaging of clinical study supplies.
`
`10.
`
`I retired from Purdue in 2005. While at Purdue, I spent the majority
`
`of my time on the development of extended-release opioid products. In my later
`
`years at Purdue, we focused on the development of abuse-deterrent extended-
`
`release opioid products.
`
`II. THE DISCOVERY OF THE ’976 PATENT INVENTION
`
`11. Purdue has a long history of work to develop abuse-deterrent opioid
`
`formulations. Purdue’s efforts began in mid-1996, when Purdue initiated
`
`development of an abuse-deterrent extended-release hydrocodone combination
`
`with an opioid antagonist. (Ex. 2088 at 90, 92.) One year later, Purdue met with
`
`the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the
`
`National Institute of Drug Abuse, and it was agreed to prioritize development of
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`this product. (Id.) Consequently, in mid-1998, Purdue filed an Investigational
`
`New Drug application for extended-release hydrocodone with naltrexone. (Id.) At
`
`the end of 1998, Purdue began a program to combine oxycodone with an opioid
`
`antagonist to reduce oxycodone side effects. (Id.) Then, in the late 1990s and
`
`early 2000, Curtis Wright and others at Purdue began a major initiative to identify
`
`and develop abuse-deterrent opioid formulations, which would span many years.
`
`(Id.) The official project team, which became known as the “Opioid X” project,
`
`was formed on April 17, 2000. (Id.)
`
`12. The abuse-deterrent oxycodone program fell under the Opioid X
`
`program umbrella. As previously mentioned, I was responsible for the
`
`development of the original OxyContin® formulation, which was launched in
`
`1996. Before the development of OxyContin®, I had also been involved in the
`
`development of the MS Contin® product, an extended-release formulation of
`
`morphine sulfate. Following the launch of MS Contin®, Purdue received only
`
`very infrequent and isolated reports of abuse of MS Contin®. Given the similar
`
`dosage forms and strengths of original OxyContin® and MS Contin®, we did not
`
`have any reason to believe that OxyContin® would be any different with respect to
`
`abuse and misuse. Several years after the launch of original OxyContin®,
`
`however, Purdue began to hear reports of OxyContin® abuse. I learned of these
`
`reports from my colleagues in the medical department at Purdue, such as Curtis
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`Wright. These reports, along with the previously known abuse problems with
`
`hydrocodone, were a major impetus for the Opioid X project.
`
`13. As far as I was aware, Purdue was the first company to undertake a
`
`wide-ranging and comprehensive program for the development of abuse-deterrent
`
`opioid formulations. We were at the forefront of a nascent field. Moreover, the
`
`Opioid X project was considered extremely important and urgent within Purdue.
`
`OxyContin® was a very successful, breakthrough product, because it was able to
`
`provide 12 hours of pain relief in those who suffered from chronic pain. It was
`
`also critical to the success of the company. Purdue therefore invested an enormous
`
`amount of resources into its reformulation. Under the Opioid X umbrella, we
`
`evaluated every abuse-deterrent option that we could think of, including a
`
`multitude of variations on those options. Knowing that it would be impossible to
`
`predict in advance which option would ultimately be successful, we tried a number
`
`of approaches in parallel, and later continued to go back and forth among these
`
`options depending on the results of our experiments and clinical studies. Our focus
`
`on the development of abuse-deterrent technologies continued throughout my time
`
`at the company.
`
`14. As the Vice President of Pharmaceutics, the formulation development
`
`activities of the Opioid X project were my responsibility. My group and I
`
`considered a great number of formulation options for achieving the abuse-deterrent
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`goal. Early on, we focused on so-called “chemical” approaches involving
`
`combining the opioid with an opioid antagonist like naloxone or naltrexone. This
`
`posed a number of formulation and pharmacological challenges and opportunities.
`
`For example, in some formulations we included very small amounts of an
`
`immediate-release portion of the antagonist, which we believed would have no
`
`effect if taken as indicated but would block the opioid effect if misused or abused.
`
`We believed that the addition of a small amount of naloxone to the original
`
`OxyContin® formulation under this approach would render the formulation abuse
`
`resistant and would be our fastest approach to the market with an abuse-deterrent
`
`product. Our goal was to bring an effective abuse-deterrent formulation to market
`
`as quickly as possible. We later learned, however, that even small amounts of
`
`naloxone could pose withdrawal issues to patients who took high doses of
`
`oxycodone. In a different “chemical” approach, we tried the opposite—to
`
`completely sequester larger amounts of the antagonist, so that it would be
`
`bioavailable only if the dosage form were tampered or misused. As we later
`
`discovered, this approach also suffered from drawbacks, including unanticipated
`
`leakage of the sequestered antagonist.
`
`15. We looked at a wide variety of techniques to prepare various
`
`“chemical”-approach formulations. As of April 2001, we had evaluated at least the
`
`following formulation options with respect to oxycodone: incorporating small
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`amounts of naloxone into the original OxyContin® formulation (Ex. 2104 at 11-
`
`21); combining original OxyContin® granules with extended-release naloxone
`
`granules, prepared the same way, in tablets (id. at 22-29); combining original
`
`OxyContin® granules with extended-release naloxone granules prepared with a
`
`different extended-release agent (ethylcellulose), in tablets (id. at 30-37); preparing
`
`the foregoing naloxone granules by extrusion rather than granulation (id. at 38-40);
`
`combining extended-release (coated non-pareil) beads of oxycodone with non-
`
`bioavailable (coated non-pareil) beads of naltrexone in capsules (id. at 46-47);
`
`incorporating non-bioavailable naltrexone beads into the original OxyContin®
`
`formulation (id. at 46, 48-50); combining the foregoing oxycodone and naltrexone
`
`beads in tablets (id. at 46, 48, 51-52); combining extended-release pellets (melt-
`
`extruded multiparticulates) of oxycodone with non-bioavailable pellets (melt-
`
`extruded multiparticulates) of naltrexone in capsules (id. at 46, 67-83); and
`
`partnering with a third party to use 3D-printing technology to print tablets with
`
`controlled segregation of oxycodone and the antagonist and with specified wall
`
`thickness, porosity, and geometry to control the release of both components (id. at
`
`99-105).
`
`16. We also evaluated a number of so-called “physical” approaches to
`
`abuse deterrence. These included the inclusion of dyes that were released when
`
`tampered or abused to “mark” the misuser, the inclusion of bittering or irritant
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`agents that made misuse and abuse very unpleasant, and the inclusion of gelling
`
`agents to make syringing or snorting the tampered dosage form difficult or
`
`impossible. (This latter approach is the subject of the ’976 Patent invention.)
`
`17. Our main objective with the OxyContin® Opioid X project was to
`
`create a formulation that had additional, effective abuse-deterrent features but that
`
`also provided bioequivalence, including equivalent drug release and absorption
`
`profiles, to the original OxyContin® formulation. In other words, we needed a
`
`formulation that reduced, or eliminated, misuses but that was otherwise
`
`indistinguishable to a patient who was not misusing it. We also wanted to bring
`
`this product to market as soon as possible, to address the need for it.
`
`18. Throughout the Opioid X project, I spent many hours meeting and
`
`brainstorming with others at Purdue, and especially with Curtis Wright, about how
`
`to address the abuse deterrence problem. At the time, Dr. Wright was in the
`
`medical group and responsible for clinical research activities. As part of this
`
`group, he received reports about how the original OxyContin® formulation was
`
`being misused in the market. From his prior experience as a treating physician, he
`
`also had a lot of experience with patients who had misused or abused other opioids,
`
`and great insight into how opioids were abused. I provided the formulation
`
`expertise to these discussions. Christopher Breder, a clinical project leader trained
`
`as an anesthesiologist, reported to Dr. Wright in the medical group.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`19. The gelling concept that is embodied in the ’976 Patent was the result
`
`of conversations that I had with Dr. Wright. Dr. Wright had explained that two
`
`common ways of abusing opioids, including the original OxyContin®, were
`
`injecting and snorting it. The injection route involved crushing and dissolving the
`
`tablet in a small amount of water, possibly heating the solution, and then pulling
`
`the solution into a syringe through a cotton filter. Abusers could do this with
`
`common items (spoons, a cigarette lighter, insulin syringe, and a cotton ball) and in
`
`a typical bathroom. The snorting route involved crushing or grinding up the tablet
`
`and then inhaling the powder directly. During the course of one of our
`
`conversations, sometime in the late 1990s or early in 2000, we had the idea to add
`
`an ingredient to the formulation that would cause the drug solution to form a gel,
`
`so that it could not be easily syringed and it would form a gunky mass in the nasal
`
`cavity if snorted.
`
`20. To achieve gelling of a tampered dosage form, based on my guidance,
`
`we looked at adding pharmaceutically acceptable binders that could have gelling
`
`properties to the formulation. There were a relatively large number of binders
`
`known at the time, and many of them had the potential to increase the viscosity of
`
`a solution. We were not aware of them having been used for the purpose of abuse
`
`deterrence before, however, and we were concerned that using adequate quantities
`
`of binders to provide gelling under abuse conditions could lead to other problems
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`with the formulation. Specifically, we were concerned that the same properties
`
`that would prevent syringing or inhaling the solution would also ruin the release
`
`profile of the formulation when administered as directed.
`
`21. There were other unknowns associated with this approach. Even if
`
`the addition of sufficient quantities of gelling agents did not prevent release of the
`
`drug, they were still likely to have an effect on the release of the drug. This was
`
`particularly undesirable because it suggested that we would have to completely
`
`reformulate OxyContin® under this approach; developing a new formulation
`
`would likely be a significant challenge in light of the extensive work we conducted
`
`to develop the original formulation. We also did not know what quantity of gelling
`
`agent would be required to achieve our goal, how the particular gelling agent
`
`would interact with other components of the formulation in terms of stability or
`
`drug release, what kind of manufacturing and processing steps would be required,
`
`and whether the particular gelling agent would create any other problems, such as
`
`dose dumping or toxicity when injected.
`
`22.
`
`In early 2001, we began conducting laboratory experiments to get a
`
`sense of the viability of this approach. These experiments were conducted by
`
`various members of my formulation development group and the pharmaceutical
`
`analysis group. Beginning in January 2001, at my direction, Purdue laboratory
`
`scientists tested the syringeability of various concentration solutions of pectin,
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`sodium alginate, and sodium acrylate, as well as combinations of pectin and
`
`sodium alginate. (Ex. 2105.) The results of these experiments showed, among
`
`other things, that certain samples did indeed become too thick and viscous to be
`
`drawn into the syringe, establishing an initial proof-of-concept for this approach,
`
`and that the abuse deterrence provided by the gelling agent was enhanced when
`
`OxyContin® placebo tablets were added. (Id.) (Data from this experiment is
`
`reported in Example 3 of the ’976 Patent.)
`
`23. Following these initially promising results, between February and
`
`May 2001, under my direction, Purdue scientists conducted additional
`
`experiments, including quantifying (in cP) the viscosity of the tampered solutions
`
`that corresponded to the syringeability test results. This experiment showed that
`
`the tested gel solutions below about 60 cP could be filled into a syringe only with
`
`difficulty, and that solutions above approximately 60 cP could preclude injection
`
`from a typical insulin syringe. (Ex. 2106 at 12-19.) (The results of this
`
`experiment are also reported in Example 3 of the ’976 Patent.) This testing helped
`
`set a viscosity benchmark for further studies. Among the other experiments
`
`conducted during this period were testing of the effect of pH and alcohol on gelling
`
`(Ex. 2106 at 2-11); the evaluation of xanthan gum, carrageenan, and locust bean
`
`gum (and combinations thereof) as gelling agents (Ex. 2108); and the testing of the
`
`recovery of oxycodone from solutions containing original OxyContin® and
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`
`xanthan gum (Ex. 2107). (Xanthan gum examples are provided in Examples 1 and
`
`2 of the ’976 Patent.)
`
`24. While these experiments were ongoing, we worked with Purdue’s in-
`
`house and outside counsel to prepare a patent application covering our invention.
`
`The provisional patent application, No. 60/310,534, was filed on August 6, 2001,
`
`and named Curtis Wright, Christopher Breder, and me as inventors.
`
`25. Following the filing of the provisional patent application, we
`
`continued to develop and test numerous methods of reformulating OxyContin® for
`
`abuse deterrence. We continued to pursue many of the options that we had
`
`identified early on, including trying new variations as well as turning back to ideas
`
`that we had previously worked on. I continued to be responsible for overseeing
`
`these activities. When I left in mid-2005, Purdue had not yet completed
`
`development of reformulated OxyContin®.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`
`
`Declaration of Benjamin Oshlack
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Cases IPR2016-01027, -01028 for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,060,976
`
`I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
`
`of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that all statements made of
`
`my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief
`
`are believed to be true by me. I understand that willful false statements and the
`
`like are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
`
`Dated: February !__, 2017
`
`Benjamin Oshlack
`
`-14-
`
`KASHIV1019
`IPR of Patent No. 9,492,392
`
`