`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and PFIZER INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`IPR2018-01670: Patent 8,679,069
`IPR2018-01678: Patent 8,992,486
`IPR2018-01680: Patent 9,526,844
`IPR2018-01682: Patent 9,526,844
`IPR2018-01684: Patent 9,604,008
`IPR2019-00122: Patent 8,992,486
`_____________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DEFOREST MCDUFF, PH.D.
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`I, DeForest McDuff, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
` Qualifications
`A.
`
`1.
`
`I am a Partner at Insight Economics and an expert in applied business
`
`economics with more than ten years of experience in consulting, finance, and
`
`economic research. I provide expert witness testimony and consulting in a variety
`
`of areas, including lost profits, reasonable royalties, unjust enrichment, commercial
`
`success, irreparable harm, finance, statistics, valuation, and business optimization.
`
`2. My expertise and experience span a variety of topics, including intellectual
`
`property, competition, business, antitrust, finance, labor, employment, and class
`
`action. My work spans the life sciences (including pharmaceuticals,
`
`biotechnology, diagnostics, and medical devices), electronics (including consumer
`
`electronics, semiconductors, computers, and telecommunications), and has
`
`included projects on a diverse range of other industries.
`
`3.
`
`I have significant experience evaluating the economics of the
`
`pharmaceuticals industry. I have provided expert analysis and consulting in over
`
`50 cases involving pharmaceuticals and related products, including evaluations of
`
`economic damages, competition, commercial success, irreparable harm, and other
`
`issues. I have evaluated a number of pharmaceutical product launches, both in a
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`litigation setting and an advisory role, and have published articles and taught
`
`continuing legal education on pharmaceutical topics as well.
`
`4.
`
`I earned my Ph.D. in economics from Princeton University. At Princeton, I
`
`received a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship for
`
`academic research studying financial economics and applied microeconomics. I
`
`have published research in several peer-reviewed academic journals. I graduated
`
`summa cum laude with undergraduate degrees in economics and mathematics from
`
`the University of Maryland. My curriculum vitae, provided as Attachment A-1,
`
`contains more details on my background, education, experience, and expert
`
`testimony.
`
` Scope of Work
`B.
`
`5.
`
`In connection with my work on this matter, Insight Economics has been
`
`retained by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on behalf of Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) and by Winston & Strawn on behalf of Pfizer Inc.
`
`(“Pfizer”). Insight Economics is being compensated at a rate of $700 per hour for
`
`my work and at lower rates for time spent by others on my team. The
`
`compensation of Insight Economics is not dependent on the substance of my
`
`testimony or the outcome of this matter.
`
`6.
`
`For this declaration, I was asked to review and respond to the Declaration of
`
`Henry G. Grabowski, Ph.D. In Support of Patent Owner’s Response to Petition for
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,679,069 (“’069 Declaration”),
`
`Declaration of Henry G. Grabowski, Ph.D. In Support of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,992,486 (“’486 Declaration”),
`
`Declaration of Henry G. Grabowski, Ph.D. In Support of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 9,526,844 (“’844 Declaration”),
`
`and Declaration of Henry G. Grabowski, Ph.D. In Support of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 9,604,008 (“’008
`
`Declaration”) (collectively, “Grabowski Declarations”), submitted in June 2019 in
`
`their respective IPR cases: the ’069 Declaration submitted in IPR2018-01670, the
`
`’486 Declaration submitted in IPR2018-01678 and IPR2019-00122, the ’844
`
`Declaration submitted in IPR2018-01680 and IPR2018-01682, and the ’008
`
`Declaration submitted in IPR2018-01684.1 The Grabowski Declarations pertain to
`
`the alleged commercial success of Lantus SoloStar sold by Sanofi-Aventis
`
`Deutschland GmbH (“Sanofi”) and the alleged nexus to U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,679,069 (Ex 1001), 8,992,486 (Ex 1003), 9,526,844 (Ex 1004), and 9,604,008
`
`(Ex 1005). The Grabowski Declarations are substantively identical except they
`
`
`1
`I understand that Dr. Grabowski submitted “corrected” declarations in July
`
`2019, which I have focused on for the purposes of this declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`each reference a different one of the four patents.2 This declaration addresses all of
`
`the Grabowski Declarations collectively for their respective IPR cases. This
`
`declaration is a statement of my current opinions in this matter and the basis and
`
`reasons for these opinions, which are subject to change based upon additional
`
`information, analysis, and/or opinions of other experts.
`
` Sources
`C.
`
`7.
`
`In analyzing the Grabowski Declarations and the alleged commercial
`
`success of Lantus SoloStar, I have evaluated the Grabowski Declarations and
`
`documents cited therein, the Declaration of Dr. William C. Biggs in Support of
`
`Mylan-Pfizer Reply (the “Biggs Declaration”),3 as well as the documents cited
`
`throughout my declaration and Attachments. A list of the documents I have relied
`
`upon are contained in Attachment A-2.
`
`II. Background
`
` Patents-at-issue
`A.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that the following patents (collectively, “the patents-at-issue”)
`
`are at issue in their corresponding IPR proceedings (as noted above, I have been
`
`
`2
`Ex 1055: Henry Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at 72:3-7.
`
`3
`
`Ex 1048: Expert Declaration of William Curtis Biggs, M.D., FACE, ECNU
`
`in Support of Mylan-Pfizer Reply.
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`asked to respond to Dr. Grabowski’s opinions, which are limited to only the ’069
`
`patent, ’486 patent, ’844 patent, and ’008 patent):
`
` 8,679,069 (“the ’069 patent”)
` 8,992,486 (“the ’486 patent”)
`
`IPR2018-01670
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01678
`
`IPR2019-00122
`
` 9,526,844 (“the ’844 patent”)
`
`IPR2018-01680
`
` 9,604,008 (“the ’008 patent”)
`
`IPR2018-01684
`
`IPR2018-01682
`
`
`The ’069 patent was filed on November 11, 2010 and issued on March 25,
`
`9.
`
`2014;4 the ’486 patent was filed on June 4, 2013 and issued on March 31, 2015;5
`
`the ’844 patent was filed on May 17, 2016 and issued on December 27, 2016;6 and
`
`the ’008 patent was filed on June 30, 2014 and issued on March 28, 2017.7 I
`
`understand that claim 1 of the ’069 patent,8 claims 1-6, 12-18, 20, 23, 26-30, 32-
`
`
`4
`Ex 1001: ’069 patent.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Ex 1003: ’486 patent.
`
`Ex 1004: ’844 patent.
`
`Ex 1005: ’008 patent.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review for Patent No. 8,679,069, Case IPR2018-
`
`01670, at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`33, 36, 38-40 of the ’486 patent,9 claims 21-30 of the ’844 patent,10 and claims 1,
`
`3, 7-8, 11, and 17 of the ’008 patent are at issue in these IPR proceedings.11 The
`
`’069 patent, and ’486 patent are titled “Pen-Type Injector” and share the following
`
`abstract:
`
`A housing for a dispensing apparatus. The housing comprising a main
`
`housing and a dose dial sleeve. The dose dial sleeve comprising a helical
`
`groove configured to engage a threading provided by the housing. A dose
`
`knob is disposed near a proximal end of the dose dial sleeve and a piston rod
`
`is provided within the housing. The piston rod is non-rotatable during a dose
`
`setting step. A driver comprises an internal threading near a distal portion of
`
`the driver and is adapted to engage an external thread of the piston rod. A
`
`9
`Petition for Inter Partes Review for Patent No. 8,992,486, Case IPR2018-
`
`10678, at 1;
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review for Patent No. 8,992,486, Case IPR2019-
`
`00122, at 1.
`
`10
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review for Patent No. 9,526,844, Case IPR2018-
`
`01680, at 1;
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review for Patent No. 9,526,844, Case IPR2018-
`
`01682, at 1.
`
`11
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review for Patent No. 9,604,008, Case IPR2018-
`
`01684, at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`tubular clutch is located adjacent a distal end of the dose knob and operatively
`
`coupled to the dose knob. The dose dial sleeve may extend circumferentially
`around at least a portion of the tubular clutch.12
`
`
`10. The ’844 patent is also titled “Pen-Type Injector” and has the following
`
`abstract:
`
`The present invention relates to injectors, such as pen-type injectors, that
`
`provide for administration of medicinal products from a multidose-cartridge
`
`and permit a user to set the delivery dose. The injector may include a housing,
`
`a piston rod adapted to operate through the housing, a dose dial sleeve
`
`located between the housing and the piston rod, and a drive sleeve located
`
`between the dose dial sleeve and the piston rod. The dose dial sleeve may have
`
`a helical thread of first lead and the drive sleeve may have a helical groove
`
`of second lead. The first lead of the helical thread and the second lead of the
`helical groove may be the same.13
`
`
`11. The ’008 patent is titled “Drive Mechanisms Suitable For Use In Drug
`
`Delivery Devices” and has the following abstract:
`
`A drive mechanism suitable for use in drug delivery devices is disclosed. The
`
`drive mechanism may be used with injector-type drug delivery devices, such
`
`as those permitting a user to set the delivery dose. The drive mechanism may
`
`12
`Ex 1001: ’069 patent
`
`Ex 1003: ’486 patent.
`
`13
`
`Ex 1004: ’844 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`include a housing, a dose dial sleeve, and a drive sleeve. A clutch is
`
`configured to permit rotation of the drive sleeve and the dose dial sleeve with
`
`respect to the housing when the dose dial sleeve and drive sleeve are coupled
`
`through the clutch. Conversely, when the dose dial sleeve and drive sleeve are
`
`in a de-coupled state, rotation of the dose dial sleeve with respect to the
`
`housing is permitted and rotation of the drive sleeve with respect to the
`
`housing is prevented. In the de-coupled state, axial movement of the drive
`
`sleeve transfers force in a longitudinal direction for actuation of a drug
`delivery device.14
`
` Diabetes
`B.
`
`12. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) describes diabetes
`
`as a chronic disease that affects how the human body turns food into energy.15
`
`Specifically, food that is broken down into sugars (glucose) and released into the
`
`bloodstream is utilized by the body’s cells as energy.16 Insulin is a hormone
`
`
`14
`Ex 1005: ’008 patent.
`
`15
`
`Ex 1073: CDC, About Diabetes,
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed 7/18/2019).
`
`16
`
`Ex 1073: CDC, About Diabetes,
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed 7/18/2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`produced by the pancreas that allows the blood sugar into the body’s cells.17
`
`Diabetes is a condition in which the body either fails to produce enough insulin or
`
`cannot use the insulin it makes as effectively as it should.18 Excess blood sugar
`
`that accumulates and stays in the bloodstream over time can cause health problems,
`
`including heart disease, vision loss, and kidney disease.19
`
`13. Approximately 30.3 million adults in the U.S. have diabetes, which is the
`
`seventh leading cause of death in the U.S. and the number one cause of kidney
`
`failure, lower-limb amputations, and adult onset of blindness.20 There are three
`
`main types of diabetes: type 1 (an autoimmune reaction that prevents the body
`
`from making insulin), type 2 (the body becomes less efficient at using insulin to
`
`
`17
`Ex 1073: CDC, About Diabetes,
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed 7/18/2019).
`
`18
`
`Ex 1073: CDC, About Diabetes,
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed 7/18/2019).
`
`19
`
`Ex 1073: CDC, About Diabetes,
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed 7/18/2019).
`
`20
`
`Ex 1073: CDC, About Diabetes,
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed 7/18/2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`maintain normal blood sugar levels), and gestational diabetes (occurs during
`
`pregnancy but usually disappears after childbirth).21
`
` Treatment
`C.
`
`14. There are several forms of treatment for diabetes, including the following
`
`drug classes: Insulins, Glitazones, Sulfonylureas, Thyroid Drugs, and Other Oral
`
`Agents.22 The most prevalent treatment class is insulin therapy, which can be
`
`administered either through a subcutaneous injection or inhalation.23 Within the
`
`injectable insulin group, there are five subclasses of treatments based on the length
`
`of time it takes insulin to reach the bloodstream and begin to lower the body’s
`
`blood sugar levels (“onset”), the time when the insulin maximizes its ability to
`
`lower blood sugar (“peak”), and the length of time insulin continues to work within
`
`the body (“duration”): Rapid Acting; Short-Acting; Intermediate-Acting; Long-
`
`
`21
`Ex 1073: CDC, About Diabetes,
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed 7/18/2019).
`
`22
`
`Ex 1087: SG Cowen, Pharmaceutical Therapeutic Categories Outlook, 2001-
`
`10, at 137.
`
`23
`
`Ex 1087: SG Cowen, Pharmaceutical Therapeutic Categories Outlook, 2001-
`
`10, at 137.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`Acting; and Pre-Mixed (a mix of intermediate- and short-acting insulin).24 I
`
`understand that there is a general lack of generic competition for insulin treatments
`
`and that prices for insulin have “skyrocketed” in the last several decades.25 Indeed,
`
`a study presented at the American Diabetes Association concluded that “the cost of
`
`insulin results in nearly 25 percent of patients not taking insulin as they should”
`
`(i.e., the patients are “self-rationing”).26 I understand that Lantus is a long-acting
`
`
`24
`Ex 1094: WebMD, “Types of Insulin for Diabetes Treatment,”
`
`https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/diabetes-types-insulin#1 (accessed
`
`7/18/2019).
`
`25
`
`Ex 1090: U.S. News and World Report, “Insulin Costs are Skyrocketing.
`
`This is Why.,” https://health.usnews.com/health-care/for-
`
`better/articles/2018-06-29/whats-behind-the-rising-costs-of-insulin (accessed
`
`7/18/2019).
`
`26
`
`Ex 1090: U.S. News and World Report, “Insulin Costs are Skyrocketing.
`
`This is Why.,” https://health.usnews.com/health-care/for-
`
`better/articles/2018-06-29/whats-behind-the-rising-costs-of-insulin (accessed
`
`7/18/2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`injectable insulin drug product, and is used to treat adults with type 2 diabetes and
`
`pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes.27
`
`III. Analysis of Commercial Success
`
` Overview
`A.
`
`15. The commercial success of a product that embodies a claimed invention of a
`
`patent is a secondary consideration that may be set forth by a patent owner to argue
`
`the claim is not obvious. I have been informed that commercial success may be
`
`relevant to the determination of a patent’s obviousness based on the presumption
`
`that an idea could have been brought to market sooner, in response to market
`
`forces, had it been obvious to persons skilled in the art. I have been further
`
`informed that evidence of commercial success may be relevant to obviousness if
`
`there is a nexus between the alleged commercial success and the patentable
`
`features of the asserted claims.
`
`16. For this declaration, I was asked to review the Grabowski Declarations that
`
`have been put forth by Sanofi in support of commercial success of Lantus SoloStar
`
`
`27
`Ex 1081: Lantus Webpage, “Get to Know the Lantus SoloSTAR Insulin
`
`Pen,” https://www.lantus.com/get-to-know-the-lantus-solostar-pen (accessed
`
`7/19/2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`as a secondary consideration in the current matters.28 Upon review, I find that the
`
`Grabowski Declarations have not demonstrated the commercial success of Lantus
`
`SoloStar nor have they shown a nexus to the claimed inventions, based upon the
`
`following factors: (1) the Grabowski Declarations provide a limited and
`
`incomplete analysis of Lantus SoloStar’s market performance, (Section III.B
`
`below); (2) the Grabowski Declarations do not establish a nexus to the patents-at-
`
`issue (Section III.C); (3) blocking patents reduce the relevance of the commercial
`
`performance of Lantus SoloStar (Section III.D); (4) Dr. Grabowski has established
`
`no nexus between the claims and non-SoloStar products (Section III.E); (5) Dr.
`
`Grabowski provides an incomplete analysis of other SoloStar products (Section
`
`III.F). For reasons discussed in Sections III.C on demand factors for Lantus
`
`SoloStar, Section III.D on blocking patents, and other reasons described below, I
`
`have concluded that no such nexus to the claimed inventions exists.
`
` The Grabowski Declarations provide a limited and incomplete
`B.
`
`analysis of Lantus SoloStar’s market performance
`
`17. The Grabowski Declarations claim to show the commercial success of the
`
`Lantus SoloStar product based upon the assertions that: (1) Lantus SoloStar’s sales
`
`
`28
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`“substantially outperformed” sales of Lantus OptiClik;29 (2) Lantus SoloStar “was
`
`a driver of the commercial success of the Lantus Franchise as a whole;”30
`
`(3) Lantus SoloStar’s market shares have shown “strong performance” among
`
`insulin pen products;31 (4) the development of “follow-on products” such as the
`
`Basaglar KwikPen and Mylan’s biologic pen device;32 and (5) Lantus SoloStar has
`
`had “strong formulary placement.”33 However, the Grabowski Declarations’
`
`analysis of Lantus SoloStar’s market performance is limited and incomplete,
`
`including: (1) no benchmarks for evaluating success; (2) no evaluation of costs or
`
`profits; (3) limiting to “pens only” is a faulty market definition; and (4) formulary
`
`status does not separately demonstrate commercial success. These factors are
`
`evaluated in the sections that follow.
`
`
`29
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶¶ 35-37.
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`33
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 34.
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶¶ 43-44.
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 38.
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶¶ 39-42;
`
`Ex 2192: Formulary Placement: Medicare Plans;
`
`Ex 2191: Formulary Placement: Commercial Plans.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) No benchmarks for evaluating success
`
`18. The Grabowski Declarations provide very little guidance for what
`
`constitutes a commercially successful pharmaceutical product, and provide
`
`essentially no relevant benchmarks for concluding whether Lantus SoloStar has
`
`been successful.
`
`19. Dr. Grabowski reports only: (a) calculated values and growth rates for
`
`Lantus SoloStar sales and prescriptions,34 (b) Lantus SoloStar’s share of the
`
`“Lantus franchise,”35 (c) a comparison of Lantus SoloStar sales and prescriptions
`
`to Lantus OptiClik,36 and (d) a summary of sales for two Lantus SoloStar “follow-
`
`on products.”37 In doing so, Dr. Grabowski tabulates the sales figures yet fails to
`
`provide meaningful comparisons from which to conclude whether or not they are
`
`commercially successful.
`
`20. For example, Dr. Grabowski reports the supposed growth rate for Lantus
`
`SoloStar to be “8,526 percent.”38 However, reporting growth rates from product
`
`
`34
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶¶ 32-33.
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 34.
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶¶ 35-37.
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 38.
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 32.
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`launch is misleading and provides little indication of success. In fact, any amount
`
`of growth starting from close-to-zero at launch can appear to be large in percentage
`
`terms because the starting point is so small. By comparison, use of Lantus
`
`OptiClik also grew over 8,000% in the first three years (from 14,000 prescriptions
`
`in the 12 months ending March 2005 to 1.2 million prescriptions in the 12 months
`
`ending March 2008 1.2 million / 14,000 – 1 = 8,471%), thus showing no unique
`
`characteristics of the SoloStar pens compared to OptiClik. See Attachment B-10.
`
`21. Similarly, Dr. Grabowski summarily concludes Lantus SoloStar’s increasing
`
`share within the Lantus Franchise is evidence of commercial success.39 However,
`
`Dr. Grabowski provides very little analysis for why Lantus SoloStar’s share of the
`
`Lantus franchise is increasing. As discussed below, Sanofi sought to actively
`
`switch patients among its Lantus products to extend its patent protection. If
`
`anything, prescription data show that the growth rate of the Lantus franchise had
`
`already stabilized before the launch of Lantus SoloStar, showing no incremental
`
`increase from the new product. See Section III.C.(3) below. Again, this indicates
`
`that Lantus SoloStar sales were not driven by any unique characteristics of the
`
`SoloStar pen itself.
`
`
`39
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 34.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`22. Dr. Grabowski’s single supposed “good benchmark,”40 the Lantus OptiClik,
`
`is actually not an appropriate benchmark. Dr. Grabowski implies that Lantus
`
`SoloStar competitively “displaced Lantus OptiClik as the preferred Lantus pen,”41
`
`but this is not the case. As discussed, below, Sanofi actively migrated Lantus
`
`patients from the OptiClik to the SoloStar, and even took OptiClik off the market
`
`to benefit SoloStar. In contrast, Lantus SoloStar did not appear to impact the
`
`overall sales trajectory of Lantus products.
`
`(2) No evaluation of costs or profits
`
`23. One consideration for commercial success analysis is whether the sales and
`
`profits of a product are large enough to incentivize others to bring a particular
`
`product to market sooner if the claimed subject matter were obvious. Consistent
`
`with this, evaluation of success in the pharmaceutical context often involves a
`
`comparison of sales and profits to the costs incurred during years of research,
`
`
`40
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 35.
`
`41
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 37.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`development, and clinical trials, which are often substantial.42 For example, Dr.
`
`Grabowski’s own research shows how pharmaceutical products often lose money
`
`for years before possibly earning any return on investment:43
`
`
`42
`Ex 1076: DiMasi, Joseph, Henry Grabowski, and Ronald Hansen (2016),
`
`"Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs,"
`
`Journal of Health Economics 47: 20–33.
`
`Ex 1074: David, Jesse and Marion B. Stewart (2005), “Commercial Success:
`
`Economic Principles Applied to Patent Litigation,” in Gregory K. Leonard
`
`and Lauren J. Stiroh, ed., Economic Approaches to Intellectual Property
`
`Policy, Litigation, and Management, White Plains, NY: National Economic
`
`Research Associates, Inc., at 160.
`
`Ex 1084: McDuff, Andrews, and Brundage (2017), “Thinking Economically
`
`About Commercial Success,” Landslide 9(4): 37-40.
`
`43
`
`Ex 1077: Grabowski, Vernon, and DiMasi (2002), “Returns on Research and
`
`Development for 1990s New Drug Introductions,” Pharmacoeconomics 20
`
`Suppl. 3: 11-29.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`Market Introduction
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`200 -
`
`150
`
`100
`
`50 -
`
`0
`
`-50 -
`
`-100
`
`$US millions (2000 values)
`
`11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
`
` 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
`Year
`
`Fig. 5. Cash flows over the product life cycle: baseline case.
`
`
`
`24. Dr. Grabowski testified before Congress in support of increasing FDA data
`
`exclusivity for biologics (such as Lantus) as compared to exclusivity available
`
`under the Hatch-Waxman Act because he predicted biologic compounds would
`
`take even longer on average to make up for investments costs than small-molecule
`
`drugs.44 It certainly may not be assumed that Lantus SoloStar has been a
`
`commercial success from the perspective of return on investment. Despite this, the
`
`Grabowski Declaration provides no analysis whatsoever of Lantus SoloStar’s
`
`costs, profits, return on investment, or any other measure of profitability, and thus
`
`lacks sufficient basis to claim that Lantus SoloStar earned a return on investment
`
`and that it is a commercially successful pharmaceutical product.
`
`
`44
`Ex 1055: Henry Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at 140:11-141:17, 143:4-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`(3) Limiting to “pens only” is a faulty market definition
`
`25. Dr. Grabowski acknowledges that “a relevant set of products to analyze the
`
`performance of Lantus SoloSTAR is the set of prescription injectable insulin or
`
`insulin analog products.”45 Despite this, Dr. Grabowski limits his analysis to just
`
`
`45
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 21. During his deposition,
`
`Dr. Grabowski agreed that "all insulin injectable products, whether
`
`administered by pen or by vial and syringe” is “the data that is the
`
`appropriate data to do commercial success.” Ex 1055: Henry Grabowski,
`
`Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at 22:10-19. When asked whether it was “inappropriate
`
`to look at the entire injectable insulin product market to perform a
`
`commercial success analysis for the Lantus SoloSTAR pen,” Dr. Grabowski
`
`testified that this “can be one complementary measure,” that “one can
`
`always broaden an analysis to a broader field—broader markets, and I have
`
`done that in one case.” Ex 1055: Henry Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at
`
`26:9-19. Dr. Grabowski also agreed that SoloStar is used to deliver short-
`
`acting and long-acting insulin, was not aware of any reason it can’t be used
`
`to deliver intermediate acting insulin, and that the pen operates the same way
`
`regardless of whether it’s delivering a short-acting or a long-acting insulin.
`
`Ex 1055: Henry Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, 27:16-29:7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`injectable pen products, reporting: (a) Lantus SoloStar and several other long-
`
`acting pen products’ sales and prescription as a share of all injectable pens,46 and
`
`(b) Lantus SoloStar and several other long-acting pen products’ sales and
`
`prescriptions as a share of just long-acting injectable pens.47 Such an analysis
`
`misrepresents the market and provides inflated market share calculations.
`
`26.
`
`In actuality, Lantus SoloStar competes in the insulin market against the
`
`many other fast-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting insulin
`
`and insulin analog products, as acknowledged by Sanofi48 itself and third-party
`
`market analysis:
`
`
`46
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶ 43.
`
`47
`
`Ex 2109: Grabowski Declarations, 6/22/2019, ¶¶ 44-45.
`
`48 Dr. Grabowski considered it appropriate to compare Lantus SoloStar to all
`
`insulin pen products regardless of whether they are fast-acting or long-
`
`acting. Ex 1055: Henry Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at 81:20-83:4. He
`
`agreed that his Exhibit 2186 “provides a complete list of the relevant
`
`competitive products for the SoloStar pen” and that his list includes
`
`“products that are sold as a vial and syringe administration method” as well
`
`as “fast-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting insulin products.” Ex
`
`1055: Henry Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at 90:18-91:9. Although he
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Aventis 20-Fs (2002, 2003): Lantus is described as competing
`
`within the “insulin market” (i.e., all insulin products) within the
`
`United States and worldwide.49
`
`b. Sanofi Lantus SoloStar Launch Book (2007): Within the “Patient
`
`Targeting” section, Lantus SoloStar’s “Business Opportunities”
`
`include “[u]ncontrolled and/or unsatisfied T2DM patients on
`
`competitor insulin,” which include various fast-acting and long-
`
`acting insulin products such as: “NPH,” “Premix,” and
`
`“Levemir.”50
`
`
`admitted pen sales for fast- and intermediate-acting insulins made up nearly
`
`half of all insulin pen sales, Dr. Grabowski omitted these pen sales from
`
`depiction on his graph, while including them in the total. Ex 1055: Henry
`
`Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at 82:22-84:12. Dr. Grabowski left the vial
`
`and syringe share of the insulin injectable market off his graph entirely. Ex
`
`1055: Henry Grabowski, Dep. Tr., 9/5/2019, at 84:13-22.
`
`49
`
`Ex 1068: Aventis Form 20-F, 2002, at 60.
`
`
`
`50
`
`Ex 1069: Aventis Form 20-F, 2003, at 57.
`
`Ex 2145: Lantus SoloStar Launch Book, 2007, at 11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of DeForest McDuff
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1060
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`
`
`c. Therapeutic Categories Outlook (2015): Market shares are
`
`presented for the “US insulin market,” including for
`
`“Lantus/Solostar” and for fast-acting, intermediate-acting, and
`
`long-acting products such as Humulin, Humalog, Novolin,
`
`Levemir, and Apidra.51
`
`d. Sanofi 20-F (2006): Sanofi describes Lantus as competing within
`
`“the insulin market…”52 and further compares Lantus’ clinical
`
`profile to neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulin.53
`
`e. UBS Large Cap Pharmaceuticals Handbook (2018): UBS reports
`
`market shares and sales for the “Diabetes (Insulin)” market