`Case IPR2018-00943
`Patent No. 7,919,499
`Declaration of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D.
`Attorney Docket No. AMNEAL 7.1R-005
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,919,499 to Elliot Ehrich
`Issue Date: May 19, 2015
`Title: NALTREXONE LONG ACTING
`FORMULATIONS AND METHODS OF USE
`____________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00943
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`(Exhibit 1062)
`
`DECLARATION OF SARA K. QUINNEY, Pharm.D., Ph.D. IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 8
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ON PHARMACOKINETICS ............................................ 9
`
`V. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................15
`
`VI. THE ’499 PATENT .......................................................................................16
`
`A. The Claimed AUC Differential Is Not Unexpected ...............................17
`
`B. The Claimed AUC Differential Is Not Correlated To Improved
`Therapeutic Effects .................................................................................19
`
`VII. AUC AND METHODS OF CALCULATION .............................................21
`
`A. The Area Under The Curve (AUC) ........................................................21
`
`B. Use Of Photoshop To Calculate AUC ....................................................25
`
`VIII. AUC AND PK DATA SETS.........................................................................28
`
`A. AUC Calculations And Time Zero .........................................................28
`
`B. AUC And Plasma Level .........................................................................33
`
`C. AUC And Prior Administration ..............................................................40
`
`D. A POSA Would Recognize The Data Sets Of Comer And Nuwayser As
`Originating From The Same Study .........................................................47
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`I, SARA K. QUINNEY, declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I am a U.S. Citizen and a resident of the State of Indiana.
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz &
`
`Mentlik, LLP (“counsel”) to provide my opinions in the field of clinical
`
`pharmacology and pharmacokinetics for purposes of this Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”). I have read and understand U.S. Patent No. 7,919,499 (“the ’499 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001) as well as all other references discussed in this declaration. I am being
`
`compensated for my time in an amount consistent with my customary consulting
`
`fee, and my compensation is not contingent on my opinion or the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I am an expert in pharmacokinetics, which is frequently abbreviated
`3.
`
`as “PK.” Pharmacokinetics is the branch of pharmacology that describes and
`
`quantifies the movement of a drug within the body of a living organism.
`
`Pharmacokinetics provides information on mechanisms of drug absorption,
`
`distribution, metabolism, excretion, and transport (ADMET). My background and
`
`qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae. (Ex. 1063.) It contains a
`
`description of my education, academic appointments, professional activities,
`
`research grants, presentations, service as a reviewer for professional journals,
`
`2
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`published articles in peer reviewed scholarly journals, teaching responsibilities,
`
`and thesis supervision.
`
`4.
`
`I hold a primary appointment as an Assistant Professor of Obstetrics
`
`and Gynecology at Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM). Additionally, I
`
`hold adjunct appointments in the Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department
`
`of Medicine in IUSM, the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana
`
`University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), and the Department of
`
`Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Purdue University.
`
`5.
`
`I am the Associate Director of the Indiana Clinical and Translational
`
`Sciences Institute (CTSI) Disease and Therapeutic Response Modeling Program.
`
`This program provides training in pharmacometrics and quantitative systems
`
`pharmacology, including pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling,
`
`physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, and machine learning. I
`
`am also a member of the Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
`
`(CCBB) at the Indiana University School of Medicine.
`
`6.
`
`I obtained my Doctorate in Pharmacy from Purdue University in 2000
`
`and obtained my Ph.D. in Pharmacy Practice from Purdue University in 2004. I
`
`subsequently completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship in Clinical Pharmacology at the
`
`Indiana University Division of Clinical Pharmacology in 2007 and completed a
`
`Postdoctoral Fellowship in Bioinformatics and Biostatistics at the Indiana
`
`3
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`University Department of Biostatistics in 2009. I joined the Indiana University
`
`School of Medicine as an Assistant Research Professor in 2009, and since 2013, I
`
`have been an Assistant Professor in the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and in
`
`the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Indiana University School of
`
`Medicine. Since 2013, I have also been a member of the Center for Computational
`
`Biology and Bioinformatics and since 2015, I have been an Associate Director of
`
`the Indiana CTSI Disease and Therapeutic Modeling Program within the Indiana
`
`University School of Medicine.
`
`7.
`
`Since 2009, I have designed and directed a number of clinical PK
`
`studies, primarily in pregnant women. For instance, I conducted a PK study to
`
`evaluate the effect of pregnancy on the PK of nifedipine administered to women
`
`with preterm labor. In collaboration with other investigators at IUSM, I have
`
`evaluated the impact of pharmacogenomic variants in CYP3A enzymes on the PK
`
`and PD of betamethasone for fetal lung maturation. I am currently conducting a
`
`study in women in their third trimester of pregnancy to evaluate the effect of
`
`hepatitis C virus (HCV) on the clearance of buprenorphine. Therefore, I am well
`
`versed in the design and conduct of clinical pharmacology studies, especially
`
`studies of PK, PD, and pharmacogenomics.
`
`8. My research also encompasses the area of opiate use disorder. I have
`
`conducted a clinical study evaluating the relationship between exposure of R- and
`
`4
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`S-methadone and its metabolites in maternal and neonatal blood (and plasma) and
`
`the severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome. I have also worked on a number of
`
`studies evaluating the buprenorphine therapy in pregnant women with opioid use
`
`disorder who receive treatment through the IU Maternal Fetal Medicine clinic.
`
`These studies include retrospective chart reviews to evaluate the impact of group
`
`care, breastfeeding, concurrent medications, and hepatitis C infection on maternal
`
`(e.g., withdrawal) and neonatal outcomes (e.g., neonatal abstinence syndrome). I
`
`am currently conducting a study of the effect of hepatitics C virus (HCV) on the
`
`pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine during the third trimester of pregnancy. Thus, I
`
`am familiar with conducting studies in individuals with opioid use disorders and
`
`their clinical care.
`
`9.
`
`Since 2000, I have been involved in research regarding PK drug-drug
`
`interactions and personalized therapy through understanding of inter-individual
`
`differences in PK/PD. I utilize in vitro and in vivo (clinical) data to develop
`
`computational PK models to explain the effect of drug metabolizing enzyme
`
`inhibition on the PK of co-administered drugs. My work in drug interaction
`
`research also utilizes electronic data sources, such as electronic health records
`
`(EHR) and the Food and Drug Association’s Adverse Event Reporting System
`
`(FAERS) to identify drug combinations that have increased risk of clinical adverse
`
`drug events, such as myopathy. Increased risk of adverse events in the presence of
`
`5
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`multiple medications can often be explained through PK-related drug-drug
`
`interactions.
`
`10. My research also focuses on other aspects of PK modeling, including
`
`mechanistic PBPK modeling, population PK modeling, and noncompartmental PK
`
`modeling. In addition to the clinical studies of nifedipine, betamethasone, and
`
`buprenorphine noted above, I also have analyzed data from the multi-center
`
`National Institute of Health (NIH)-funded Obstetric Pharmacology Research Unit’s
`
`(OPRU’s) opportunistic PK studies in pregnancy on nifedipine and proton pump
`
`inhibitors. I have developed PBPK models of a number of compounds, including
`
`clarithromycin and 8-prenylnaringenin, a component of hops. Utilizing
`
`noncompartmental and population modeling approaches, I have estimated the renal
`
`clearance of iohexol, a marker of glomerular filtration rate, in patients before and
`
`after gastric bypass surgery. I currently serve as the clinical pharmacology and PK
`
`expert for the NIH-funded Model Organism Development & Evaluation for
`
`Late-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease (MODEL-AD) consortium, where I lead the
`
`design and analysis of PK studies of potential AD therapies in mouse models.
`
`11.
`
`I have published 105 papers in peer-reviewed journals and given 11
`
`invited lectures. I am involved in 12 active research grants, seven pending research
`
`grants, and have participated in nine completed research grants.
`
`6
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`12. Throughout my career, I have held various leadership positions in my
`
`field, including but not limited to Associate Director of the Indiana CTSI Disease
`
`and Therapeutic Response Modeling Program (2015-present), a member of the
`
`Indiana CTSI Core Pilot Project Grant Review Committee (2014-2017),
`
`Biomedical Research Grant Review Committee Member (2018-present), Chair of
`
`the 5th Annual CTSI Therapeutic and Disease Modeling Symposium (2015), and
`
`Co-Chair of the Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling in Vulnerable
`
`Populations: Pregnant Women, Breastfeeding Infants, Neonates, and Young
`
`Children Symposium at the 2019 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and
`
`Therapeutics Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.
`
`13.
`
`I have served as a reviewer for 16 academic journals, including but
`
`not limited to Drug Metabolism and Disposition, Clinical Pharmacology and
`
`Therapeutics, Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacokinetics, and
`
`CPT: Pharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology.
`
`14. Accordingly, I believe I am an expert in the field of pharmacology,
`
`pharmacokinetics, and pharmacokinetic modeling,
`
`including generation of
`
`pharmacokinetic profiles and associated data processing, analysis, and
`
`characterization for various drugs.
`
`15. As of April 22, 2004, I was completing my second doctorate degree in
`
`the pharmacy field and was familiar with the state of the art and the level of
`
`7
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`knowledge, expertise, and technology available in the field at that time. I also
`
`believe that, because of my education, experience, and interactions with students at
`
`all levels (undergraduate, Master, M.D., Pharm.D., and Ph.D.) and scientists,
`
`researchers, and administrators at all levels in this field, both in academia and
`
`industry, I understand who a person of ordinary skill in the art was as of April 22,
`
`2004, and what such a person would have known. I also believe that I understand
`
`who a person of ordinary skill in the art was as of April 22, 2004, and what such a
`
`person would know from my review of the literature in connection with my
`
`consideration of the ’499 Patent.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`I have been asked to provide my opinions on the ’499 Patent and
`16.
`
`various references discussed in this IPR proceeding, in view of the state of the art
`
`around April 2004, which is the priority date of the ’499 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`In addition, I have been asked to respond to the opinions set forth in
`
`Dr. Berkland and Dr. O’Brien’s declarations (Exs. 2055; 2056), the arguments set
`
`forth in Alkermes’ Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”) and Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (“Resp.”), and the decision set forth in the Board’s Institution
`
`Decision (“ID”). I do so below and explain various disagreements I have with
`
`these opinions and arguments. My silence on a particular opinion does not mean I
`
`agree with that opinion.
`
`8
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`18. Finally, I have been asked to review and evaluate the declarations of
`
`Dr. Park (Exs. 1030, 1061) on the issues discussed herein. I have done so, and,
`
`except where indicated otherwise below, I agree with Dr. Park’s opinions and
`
`conclusions he set forth.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ON PHARMACOKINETICS
`“Pharmacokinetics” (PK) describes the movement of drug into
`19.
`
`(absorption or input), within (distribution), and out of (metabolism and excretion)
`
`the body. (Ex. 10821, at 2.) While pharmacodynamics is often described as
`
`studying the “effect of the drug on the body,” PK is often described as the
`
`1 Exhibit 1082 is a commonly used textbook in Pharmacokinetics, which is widely
`
`distributed and relied upon by experts in the field to explain pharmacokinetic
`
`theory to students. The copy I used in preparing this declaration was my own copy,
`
`which I was assigned and purchased for IPPH 575, Clinical Pharmacokinetics, in
`
`August, 1998, while a pharmacy student at Purdue University. I also used this
`
`book during my graduate studies at Purdue University and as the textbook for the
`
`pharmacokinetic didactics course during my NIH T32 Clinical Pharmacology
`
`Fellowship at Indiana University. As faculty in the T32 Clinical Pharmacology
`
`Fellowship, we continue to assign the Rowland and Tozer textbook (now
`
`version 4) to clinical pharmacology fellows and pharmacology and pharmacy
`
`graduate students from IUSM and Purdue University.
`
`9
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`opposite: studying the “effect of the body on the drug.” The two areas of study are,
`
`however, inextricably connected and both are important components of the field of
`
`clinical pharmacology.
`
`20.
`
`“Pharmacodynamics” (PD) describes how the concentration of a drug
`
`at its site of action is related to the magnitude of the clinical effect observed.
`
`Pharmacodynamics studies the relationship between a drug’s biochemical and
`
`physiological effects and its mechanism of action. (Id. at 3.) One of the most basic
`
`skills for a clinical pharmacologist or pharmacokineticist is the ability to test a drug
`
`and gather the PK/PD data that describe a drug’s behavior.
`
`21. The driving force for pharmacodynamic (i.e., therapeutic or toxic)
`
`events following drug dosing is the concentration of drug at the site of action. As
`
`the site of action is often inaccessible as a source for drug measurement, the
`
`concentration of drug in the blood (or plasma) is typically used as a surrogate. In
`
`other words, the PD effects of a drug are driven by its concentration at the site of
`
`action, which is correlated with its concentration in blood. The time course of the
`
`PD effect is driven or controlled by the PK properties of the drug from a given
`
`dosage form. Because of this, it is important to be able to describe the plasma
`
`concentration-time profile of a drug after it is administered to a patient. A stylized
`
`single-dose plasma concentration-time profile resulting from oral dosing is
`
`depicted below.
`
`10
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No- 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`
`(See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1082,
`
`at 44 (displaying exemplary curve with identified
`
`parameters).)
`
`22-
`
`To develop a single-dose plasma concentration-time profile,
`
`the
`
`clinical pharmacologist or pharmacokineticist will, after administering a drug (e.g.,
`
`intravenously or orally),
`
`take reasonably frequent blood samples for a time
`
`sufficient to characterize the entire profile. The blood samples, or a fluid derived
`
`fi'om blood (e.g., plasma or serum), are treated and submitted to an analytical
`
`procedure from which one can obtain a quantitative value for the concentration of
`
`the drug (and/or metabolites of that drug) in the blood sample. The resulting
`
`concentration-time profile can be plotted and analyzed, by using either
`
`compartmental or noncompartmental methods. (Exs.1082, at 42-44, 315-318;
`
`11
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`10832, at 445-449.) Compartmental methods involve developing a mathematical
`
`model, or equation, which closely approximates the plotted concentration-time
`
`profile. (Ex. 1083, at 1-109.) Properties of interest (e.g., an integral or a maximum
`
`concentration value) may then be determined from the mathematical model, which
`
`is itself an approximation of the actual concentration-time data. In contrast,
`
`noncompartmental methods involve approximating properties of interest directly
`
`from
`
`the observed concentration-time data
`
`itself, without developing a
`
`mathematical model. (Id. at 409-417.) Both methods are typically done using a
`
`computer software, although noncompartmental and simple compartmental models
`
`may be plotted on semi-log graph paper and analyzed by hand. Regardless of what
`
`method is used, one obtains estimates of the values of the PK parameters for the
`
`drug.
`
`
`2 Exhibit 1083 is a commonly used textbook in pharmacokinetics that was initially
`
`published in 1982. The copy I used in preparing this declaration (reprinted in 2007)
`
`is part of our Disease and Therapeutic Response Modeling Program reference
`
`library, and used by fellows in the program since its inception in 2009. This
`
`textbook is widely distributed and relied upon by professors today and has been
`
`since the first edition was published in 1975.
`
`12
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`23. Following a single oral dose of a drug, the plasma concentration-time
`
`profile can be used to estimate the Cmax (maximum plasma drug concentration
`
`achieved), the Tmax (time after dosing corresponding to the Cmax), the t½
`
`(half-life of the drug in the blood), and the AUC (extent of total exposure to the
`
`drug, as measured by the total area under the plasma concentration vs time curve)
`
`from time zero to time infinity. (Ex. 1082, at 24.) These parameters are functions
`
`of the drug’s absorption, volume of distribution (V), and clearance (CL) from the
`
`body. The AUC is a function of the amount of drug that gets absorbed into the
`
`systemic circulation and the clearance of the drug from the blood. Given that
`
`elimination is linear, the AUC can be used to estimate extent of absorption.
`
`(Ex. 1082, at 45.) The figure above
`
`is
`
`that of a characteristic plasma
`
`concentration-time curve for an immediate-release dosage form, i.e., one designed
`
`not to delay release and subsequent absorption with first-order elimination.
`
`24. Often, a POSA will want to depict graphically the PK profile of a drug
`
`administered to multiple subjects. Placing the profile for each subject on a single
`
`graph may, however, be cumbersome and confusing. It is therefore common for a
`
`POSA to prepare an average plasma concentration-time profile by plotting the
`
`average plasma concentrations of all subjects, with the standard deviation or
`
`standard error, at each sample time. This is what is typically displayed in
`
`publications or regulatory documents. Such a graph provides a useful indication of
`
`13
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`the PK behavior of the dosage form across multiple subjects and of PK parameters
`
`such as AUC. A graph of this type is similar to the one included above, but derives
`
`its data from a population (as described), rather than an individual, and observed
`
`data is plotted at discreet points for each sampling time.
`
`25. The drug’s dosage form, its formulation, and route of administration
`
`affect the shape of the plasma concentration-time curve. For a drug administered
`
`by IV bolus, Cmax typically occurs immediately after dosing and is equivalent to
`
`the Dose/Volume of Distribution. (Ex. 1082, at 20.) For other routes of
`
`administration, such as intramuscular or subcutaneous injection, drug absorption
`
`processes delay the Tmax and reduce Cmax. Tmax and Cmax are functions of the
`
`time required for the drug to undergo dissolution and move from the site of
`
`administration, e.g., subcutaneous or intramuscular site, into the blood stream.
`
`Thus, in general, the Cmax for an immediate-release solid drug dosage form will
`
`be higher and occur earlier (i.e., shorter Tmax) than if the drug is administered as a
`
`“delayed-release” dosage form. And a long-acting depot formulation, for example
`
`a subcutaneous injection such as that at issue here, may have an even longer Tmax.
`
`26. An example of a PK profile for depot naltrexone is shown in Fig. 1 of
`
`Comer (Ex. 1010) (reproduced below) and Fig. 7 of Nuwayser.
`
`14
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`V. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand Dr. Berkland’s definition of a POSA is someone with a
`27.
`
`Master’s degree and two or three years’ experience, or a Ph.D. or M.D. with at
`
`least one or two years’ experience in the field of controlled-release formulations.
`
`(Ex. 2055, at 28.) As Dr. Berkland notes, this field includes pharmaceutical
`
`scientists, clinicians, and formulation scientists. I understand from the ’499 Patent
`
`that AUC, or “area under the curve,” which is a pharmacokinetic property of a
`
`certain dose of a pharmaceutical formulation in a patient population, is a key
`
`feature
`
`in
`
`the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, I understand from
`
`Dr. Berkland’s declaration that pharmacokinetic profiles, properties, methods of
`
`their calculation, and the meaning of this data is a focus of the case at present.
`
`Accordingly, I believe that a Pharm.D. or Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences or
`
`clinical pharmacology also has relevant expertise in the field of the invention. My
`
`15
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`definition is largely consistent with those of both Dr. Berkland and Dr. Park, my
`
`opinions do not change if their definitions are adopted.
`
`VI. THE ’499 PATENT
`I understand that the ’499 Patent (Ex. 1001) was issued on April 5,
`28.
`
`2011, from an application filed on March 17, 2005. The ’499 Patent states on its
`
`face that it claims the benefit of a U.S. Provisional Application filed April 22, 2004
`
`(“the Provisional Application”) (Ex. 1032). Therefore, I have been advised by
`
`counsel to assume that the earliest possible effective filing date for the ’499 Patent
`
`is April 22, 2004. I have also been advised by counsel to assume that all of the
`
`references cited in the grounds in the Petition are prior art.
`
`29. The ’499 Patent claims a method of treating an individual in need of
`
`naltrexone by parenterally administering a long acting formulation that includes
`
`310-480 mg of naltrexone and a biocompatible polylactide-co-glycolide (“PLGA”)
`
`polymer to the individual, where the resulting serum AUC of naltrexone is about
`
`three times greater than what is achieved by administration of 50 mg/day oral
`
`administration of naltrexone. (Ex. 1001, 21:2-8, 22:15-22.) The amount of
`
`naltrexone in the formulation at issue here ranges from about 310 mg to about
`
`480 mg of naltrexone. I note, however, that at the time, a POSA would know a
`
`good deal about naltrexone. Sustained-release naltrexone formulations have been
`
`known since at least the early 1980s and these included delivery of naltrexone from
`
`16
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`PLGA polymers. (Exs. 1025, at 704; 1012, at 2.) Half-life data, minimum plasma
`
`concentration data, and other PK/PD information date back that far as well.
`
`(Exs. 2025 (t1/2 = 1.7 to 3.7 hours; 1 ng/ml minimum effective concentration); 1012
`
`(t1/2 = about 2 hours; 1 ng/ml minimum effective concentration).) Further,
`
`naltrexone was known for use in treating narcotic and alcohol dependence.
`
`(Exs. 1025; 1012; 1019; 1022; 1024.) So a POSA reviewing the prior art, including
`
`Comer and Nuwayser, would do so with that information in mind.
`
`A. The Claimed AUC Differential Is Not Unexpected
`30. The ’499 Patent alleges that the “inventions described herein arose
`
`from unexpected discoveries made during clinical trials with a long acting
`
`formulation of naltrexone.” (Exs. 1001 Abstract, 1:31-33.) The allegedly
`
`unexpected discovery was that the pharmacokinetic properties of the long-acting
`
`depot formulation tested resulted in an AUC that was about three times that
`
`observed from 50 mg/day oral dosing.
`
`31. Contrary to the assertions in the ’499 Patent, this does not strike me as
`
`unexpected or surprising. An oral formulation is subject to the well-known
`
`phenomenon of drug metabolism called the “first-pass effect,” whereby the
`
`concentration of a drug is greatly reduced following oral administration due to
`
`metabolism in the gut wall and the liver before the drug reaches the systemic
`
`circulation. In the particular case of naltrexone, a POSA knew at the time of the
`
`17
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`’499 Patent that oral naltrexone exhibited significant first pass effect, affecting its
`
`bioavailability to varying degrees. (Ex. 1084, at 33.)
`
`32. By contrast, a long-acting depot formulation is injected into the body,
`
`generally either intramuscularly or subcutaneously, and slowly diffuses into the
`
`blood stream without passing through the gastrointestinal tract or liver. Thus, a
`
`dose administered in a depot injection would by-pass this first-pass elimination and
`
`be expected to have nearly 100% bioavailability. Accordingly, it is well known and
`
`logical to a POSA that an intramuscularly or subcutaneously injected slow-release
`
`dosage form would provide a greater AUC than an oral one, given the more direct
`
`route to the blood stream of the injected form and potential for absorption-limited
`
`pharmacokinetics (i.e., the terminal half-life of the drug is controlled by the release
`
`profile not the elimination rate). (Ex. 1082 at 38-39.)
`
`33.
`
`In addition, after detailed review, I note that the specification does not
`
`provide any data to compare or actually allow one to calculate the allegedly
`
`“unexpected” AUC of the claimed formulation. Nor does it provide any data or
`
`value for the AUC of a 50 mg/day oral dosage regimen which would allow one to
`
`calculate the claimed differential (“differential”).
`
`18
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`
`The Claimed AUC Differential Is Not
`Correlated To Improved Therapeutic Effects
`Instead, the ’499 Patent appears to focus on the effects of the claimed
`
`B.
`
`34.
`
`formulation in treating alcohol dependence. Puzzlingly, the ’499 Patent does not
`
`appear to link any increased efficacy of its formulation to the supposedly
`
`“unexpected” AUC. The ’499 Patent does not suggest that it provided a cure to
`
`alcoholism or drug abuse. Indeed, using its own data, while the claimed depot
`
`injection tested against a placebo did reduce the rate at which some patient groups
`
`relapsed—11 out of 28 patients still relapsed during the 12-week test period.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 18:48-52.) Patients treated with the claimed injection also continued
`
`drinking heavily at a steady rate throughout the course of treatment, with a median
`
`of six days to first major drinking event following 380 mg injection (Ex 1001
`
`Figs. 1A-C.) Further, although the 3x increased AUC was presumably present
`
`regardless of gender, the claimed treatment method produced “no significant
`
`differences…between women treated with naltrexone 380 mg (n=67) and those
`
`receiving placebo.” (Ex. 1001, 15:22-25.)
`
`35.
`
`In addition, although the ’499 Patent is based on the premise that oral
`
`naltrexone provides a lower AUC than the claimed injectable formulation, the
`
`patent never shows that the claimed formulation works any better than oral
`
`naltrexone. Example 3 compares the “efficacy” of oral verse injectable naltrexone,
`
`19
`
`AMN1062
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
`IPR2018-00943
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00943 (Patent No. 7,919,499)
`Decl. of Sara K. Quinney, Pharm.D., Ph.D. in Supp. of Pet’s Reply to PO’s Resp.
`
`but clearly states that “a direct head-to-head comparison of efficacy has not been
`
`studied” and thus “a definitive comparison of efficacy between Vivitrex and oral
`
`naltrexone cannot be made.” (Ex. 1001, 18:8-12.) Instead, as noted above, the
`