`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`————————————————
`Case No. IPR2018-01670 - Patent No. 8,679,069
`Case No. IPR2018-01678 - Patent No. 8,992,486
`Case No. IPR2018-01680 - Patent No. 9,526,844
`Case No. IPR2018-01682 - Patent No. 9,526,844
`Case No. IPR2018-01684 - Patent No. 9,604,008
`Case No. IPR2019-00122 - Patent No. 8,992,486
`————————————————
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM C. BIGGS
`IN SUPPORT OF MYLAN-PFIZER REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Dr. William Curtis Biggs. I am a Medical Doctor
`
`specializing in the treatment of metabolic diseases, and have extensive experience
`
`treating patients with diabetes.
`
`2.
`
`Counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”) and Pfizer Inc
`
`(“Pfizer”) approached me for expert assistance in inter partes review of involved U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,679,069 (EX1001), 8,992,486 (EX1003), 9,526,844 (EX1004), and
`
`9,604,008 (EX1005). Specifically, Mylan and Pfizer requested my views on
`
`considerations in prescribing insulin for patients.
`
`A. Education and Experience
`
`3.
`
`I received my bachelor’s degree in chemistry from the University of
`
`California, San Diego (magna cum laude) in 1978. I then attended medical
`
`school at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School at Dallas, and
`
`graduated in 1982 with a medical doctorate degree. I have been Board Certified
`
`by the American Board of Internal Medicine in Internal Medicine since 1985, and
`
`by the American Board of Preventative Medicine in Clinical Informatics in 2014.
`
`4.
`
`I have extensive post-doctoral experience, starting as an Intern in
`
`Medicine at the University of California, San Diego from 1982-83. I served as a
`
`Junior Assistant Resident at the New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston from
`
`1983-84, and then as a Senior Assistant Resident from 1984-85. From 1985-86, I was
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`-2-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`a Fellow in Endocrinology/Diabetes at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical
`
`School, and New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston. The Joslin Diabetes Center is
`
`the largest diabetes research center and clinic in the world, and a preeminent research
`
`institution for endocrinology and metabolic diseases, providing cutting-edge care for
`
`patients afflicted with diabetes.
`
`5.
`
`I currently hold academic and clinical appointments in Amarillo, Texas,
`
`including as a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at
`
`Texas Tech School of Medicine in Amarillo. I am the Medical Director of the
`
`Diabetes Center at Northwest Texas Hospital in Amarillo, Texas, the only American
`
`Diabetes Association recognized education program in our region. I have active staff
`
`privileges with the Baptist St. Anthony’s Hospital in Amarillo, Texas for hospital
`
`inpatient consultation.
`
`6.
`
`I am a Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Amarillo Legacy
`
`Medical Accountable Care Organization (ACO) since 2012. As the director of an
`
`Accountable Care Organization, I am responsible for ensuring the quality of
`
`healthcare delivery under a Medicare Shared Savings Program contract. I supervise
`
`300 healthcare providers who are working to improve healthcare delivery, improve
`
`patient outcomes, and reduce costs.
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-3-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I am the Managing Partner and Chief Medical Information Officer for
`
`Amarillo Medical Specialists LLP since 1995. Amarillo Medical Specialists LLP
`
`currently manages 43 medical providers in the Amarillo, Texas area.
`
`8.
`
`I also currently hold committee positions with the American Association
`
`of Clinical Endocrinologists and serve as the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)
`
`Advisor representing the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)
`
`at the American Medical Association CPT Editorial Panel.
`
`9.
`
`I am the Vice Chairman of the Amarillo Hospital District, which is a
`
`governmental agency with ability to levy taxes, which provides healthcare for
`
`impoverished persons living within the City of Amarillo.
`
`10.
`
`I have held various leadership positions in local and national medical
`
`profession organizations, including serving as President of the Texas Chapter of the
`
`American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, as well as serving on the Board of
`
`Directors for various diabetes organizations, including the Juvenile Diabetes
`
`Foundation in Amarillo, and the Amarillo Chapter of the American Diabetes
`
`Association. I also served on the Board of Governors for the Northwest Texas
`
`Healthcare System in Amarillo, and the Board of Directors for the Texas Chapter of
`
`the American Association for Clinical Endocrinologists.
`
`11.
`
`I have been recognized for my past work in endocrinology and medicine,
`
`including in Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare (1998-2008), Who’s Who in
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-4-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`America (2001-2008), in Who’s Who in Science and Engineering (2002-2006), as a
`
`Fellow of the American College of Endocrinology (2005), as a Promise Honoree from
`
`the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (Amarillo, June 2005), and as a Texas
`
`Monthly Magazine “SuperDoctor” in Endocrinology (2005-2019).
`
`12.
`
`I have published articles and delivered oral presentations specifically on
`
`diabetes care and prevention throughout the United States, including as a Program
`
`Speaker and Co-Director for Texas AACE Diabetes Management for Primary Care
`
`Physicians, and an invited speaker at the HIMSS1 National and Texas Annual
`
`Meetings.
`
`13.
`
`I continue to work as the Principal Investigator for numerous clinical
`
`research trials involving diabetes for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, including trials that
`
`look specifically at the effect of insulins, devices, patient education, and healthcare
`
`costs.
`
`14. A copy of my curriculum vitae detailing my education and work
`
`experience is included as exhibit EX1049 in support of my declaration.
`
`
`1 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society.
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-5-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Scope of Work
`
`15. Mylan and Pfizer have retained me as an expert in this matter,
`
`specifically regarding my experience as a clinician treating diabetic patients.
`
`16. My opinions are directed principally to long-felt, unmet need arguments
`
`provided in cases IPR2018-01670, IPR2018-01678, IPR2018-01680, IPR2018-01682,
`
`IPR2018-01684, and IPR2019-00122. For simplicity, I provide the same opinion for
`
`each of these cases.
`
`17.
`
`I receive $600 per hour for my time providing services in this case. No
`
`part of my compensation depends upon my professional opinions or on the outcome of
`
`this case.
`
`18.
`
`I have been a principal investigator for a clinical trial of Sanofi-Aventis’s
`
`high-concentration insulin glargine product, Toujeo. I do not have any affiliation with
`
`any named inventor of the involved patents.
`
`A. Legal context
`
`19.
`
`I have been advised that Sanofi has the burden of producing evidence
`
`showing long-felt, unmet need. I have been advised that long-felt, unmet need is
`
`assessed as of the filing date of the invention. I have been asked to use March 3, 2003
`
`as the date of filing (“filing date”) for the purposes of my analysis, based on the
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-6-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`earliest filing date that Sanofi claims. My opinions are true for both the filing date and
`
`remain true to the present unless I expressly indicate otherwise.
`
`20.
`
`I have been advised that a purported long-felt need must focus on what
`
`the challenged claims actually claim. I have been advised that when practical
`
`differences between prior solutions and the claimed invention are insignificant, or
`
`when existing measures adequately address the purported problem, no unmet need
`
`exists.
`
`B. Materials considered and other bases for testimony
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed the declaration of Dr. Robin S. Goland, in which she
`
`testifies for Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (“Sanofi”) regarding long-felt, unmet
`
`need. EX10[Goland], 1. I also reviewed the exhibits she cited.
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,679,069 (EX1001, particularly
`
`claim 1), 8,992,486 (EX1003, particularly claims 1-6, 12-18, 20, 23, 26-30, 32, 33, 36,
`
`and 38-40), 9,526,844 (EX1004, particularly claims 21-30), and 9,604,008 (EX1005,
`
`particularly claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 17).
`
`23. Other documents that I have considered are cited as exhibits in this
`
`declaration. I am advised these exhibits will be filed along with my declaration.
`
`24. My opinions are based on my education, on my experience, and on other
`
`bases such as articles, government data, discussions with patients, and other relevant
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-7-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`knowledge. This declaration states my current opinions, which could change if
`
`additional information or analyses become available.
`
`II.
`
`CONSIDERATIONS IN PRESCRIBING INSULIN DELIVERY
`A. Summary of opinions
`
`25.
`
`Insulin is a prescription medication. Injection force is not a significant
`
`consideration when choosing among available injectable insulin products for diabetic
`
`patients. Rather, when prescribing insulin, the overwhelming consideration is the
`
`insulin itself. Drug manufacturers determine the forms in which they make their
`
`insulins available. Hence, for patients and prescribers the choice of insulin determines
`
`the range of delivery-form options, not vice versa. EX1045, 527 (“In U.S. medical
`
`practice, the choice of insulin pen will be, to a large extent, determined by the choice
`
`of insulin, as particular insulins are specific to certain makes of insulin pen.”).
`
`26. At the 2003 filing date, in the United States, long-acting (basal) insulin
`
`was overwhelmingly delivered using vials and syringes. While injector pens were
`
`available and more commonly used in Europe back then, pens generally had not yet
`
`caught on in the United States, in part due to the higher cost. EX1046, 57-58;
`
`EX1045, 522 (noting costs). As late as 2010, market penetration of pens in the United
`
`States remained low. EX1045, 522 (“In contrast, in the United States, only 15% of
`
`patients are thought to use insulin pens.) To the extent patients in the United States
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-8-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`used pens, they generally prefer reusable pens over disposable pens because reusable
`
`pens were (and continue to be) viewed as better made and more reliable. See EX1047.
`
`27. Then as now, various insulin-delivery technologies existed and were
`
`largely fungible from the perspective of the patient and prescriber. Specifically,
`
`Sanofi’s Lantus product was widely available as a vial product well before it was
`
`available in a disposable pen. EX2111, ¶20. When Sanofi launched the Lantus pen,
`
`free Lantus samples were provided in pens rather than vials, which accelerated patient
`
`transition to its pens (in much the same way that Sanofi now provides free samples of
`
`its Toujeo products).
`
`28. At the 2003 filing date, several competing insulin-delivery technologies
`
`existed. Some (like insulin pumps) did not involve syringes or injection pens. For
`
`syringes and pens, the key considerations were the type of insulin and the cost.
`
`Individual patients might also have concerns about convenience and freedom (for
`
`syringes); inability to mix different insulins together for injection and longer injection
`
`time (for pens); durability (for disposable pens); sterility (for reusable pens); and
`
`reliability, flexibility and environmental impact (for syringes and disposable pens).
`
`EX1046, 58, 61, 68; EX1045, 526 (noting delay in completing pen injections). There
`
`were also needle-free injector pens, like Injex, for patients who hate needles. Since
`
`insulin products were often available in several delivery forms, in my experience,
`
`these trade-offs were resolved without switching the prescribed insulin.
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-9-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`29. Available pens at the 2003 filing date were already considered “easy-to-
`
`use, convenient, and accurate”. EX1046, 57, 62. Patients who were willing and able to
`
`inject themselves could do so with appropriate training. See EX1045, 523 (stressing
`
`importance of training). In my experience, injection force was never the reason why
`
`patients were unwilling or unable to inject themselves. Patients with age, physical or
`
`cognitive constraints that would prevent self-injection would not have been aided by
`
`the marginal differences in injection force between FDA-approved injector pens. See
`
`EX2114, 5 (“In general, differences in the injection force between insulin pens are
`
`relatively small.”) EX1045, 528 (same). In such cases, injection would be delegated to
`
`a family member or caregiver. In my experience, there was no difference in the level
`
`of training for SoloStar and other disposable pens. Reusable pens also had similar
`
`training requirements, with the addition of training on how to replace the cartridge.
`
`30. Dr. Goland identifies several co-morbidities with diabetes that might
`
`affect a patient’s ability to use a pen. EX2111, ¶¶22-25. While I disagree with her
`
`assessment on how “common” many of these co-morbidities are, they were all well-
`
`known at the filing date and were factored into patients’ care plans. Indeed, existing
`
`pens were considered to have met the needs of patients with “special challenges” yet
`
`capable of using a pen. EX1046, 68. Significantly, Dr. Goland does not identify any
`
`case in which a change in pen made a difference for a patient with one of these co-
`
`morbidities. Again, in my experience, a patient who was incapable of using a pen
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-10-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`would not have been aided by a switch to a different pen because the differences
`
`between pens (including differences in injection force) are too slight to make a
`
`practical difference; instead such patients would be switched to a different delivery
`
`mode, possibly including caregiver assistance.
`
`31. At the time of the 2003 filing (and even now), insulin syringes required
`
`less injection force and permitted faster injection than insulin pens. At that time, when
`
`most patients used syringes anyway, if injection force had been an issue, the patient
`
`would have been best served using a pre-loaded syringe.
`
`32.
`
`In sum, at the 2003 filing date, there was no unmet need for a disposable
`
`pen to deliver insulin with less injection force, much less the pen described in the
`
`contested claims. The real need—reliable delivery of insulin—was already being
`
`adequately met through syringes and existing pens. Individual patient difficulties were
`
`(and continue to be) addressed through training in the use of the device and other
`
`forms of support, such as pre-loading syringes. EX1045, 523 (stressing importance of
`
`training).
`
`B. No long-felt, unmet need for the claimed pen
`
`33.
`
`I note that Dr. Goland’s declaration does not discuss the claims at all
`
`except to note that they are being reviewed for unpatentability. EX2111, 1.
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-11-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`I also note that the contested claims do not facially reflect Dr. Goland’s
`
`concern for treating elderly diabetic patients or diabetic patients with dexterity or
`
`other mobility problems. Indeed, the claims do not mention insulin, diabetes, or lower
`
`injection force or thumb extension. The claims do not distinguish between types of
`
`insulin, for example, fast-acting or long-acting.
`
`35. While Dr. Goland emphasizes an “easy to use” pen as “important” for
`
`patient adherence (EX2111, ¶14), in my experience many other factors are more
`
`important. Of these, cost is easily the greatest obstacle to adherence. Indeed, in recent
`
`years when insulin prices have been soaring, I spend one-third of the appointment on
`
`average addressing the patient’s issues with affordability. There is no question that the
`
`greatest “ease of use” factor is affordability: an unaffordable pen is no use at all.
`
`1. Background and Treatments
`
`36. Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder affecting an increasing number
`
`of Americans. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)
`
`over 30 million Americans (nearly 10% of the population) suffer from diabetes. While
`
`there are many types of diabetes, Type 2 (insulin insensitivity) accounts for 90-95% of
`
`the cases. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in this country. Average
`
`medical expenditures for patients diagnosed with diabetes is about 2.3 times the
`
`average medical expenditures for non-diabetic patients. EX1044.
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-12-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Dr. Goland notes that insulins come in at least three forms, rapid-,
`
`intermediate-, and long-acting. EX2111, ¶18. Within these forms, there can be
`
`differences that also affect insulin choice. For example, Lantus and Levemir are two
`
`long-acting insulins. Lantus tends to last a bit longer than Levemir, which is helpful
`
`for patients prone to waking up in the morning with hyperglycemia (known as the
`
`“dawn effect”); but Lantus is relatively acidic and may sting when injected, which
`
`some patients cannot tolerate. Skilled clinicians consider product differences like
`
`these in determining which insulin is most suitable for an individual patient.
`
`38. Dr. Goland provides percentages for her patients using insulin but does
`
`not explain the reasons for those percentages or why they sum to less than 100%. In
`
`my practice, at any given point in time, about 60% of my diabetic patients are not
`
`using insulin. Many patients who do use insulin use pumps. These patients (not using
`
`insulin or using pumps) probably account for most of Dr. Goland’s missing patients.
`
`Differences in cost likely account for at least some of the patients using intermediate-
`
`rather than long-acting insulin. Given the high cost of long-acting insulins, I am
`
`increasingly seeing patients switching back to older, intermediate-acting insulins for
`
`cost reasons.
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-13-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Lantus and SoloStar
`
`39. While several different insulin products use the SoloStar pen, not all of
`
`them are long-acting insulin. For example, Apidra and Admelog are fast-acting insulin
`
`products available in a SoloStar pen. EX2109, ¶22. Dr. Goland’s testimony only
`
`purports to identify a long-felt unmet need for a disposable pen filled with long-acting
`
`insulins. In my experience, at the filing date, there was no long-felt unmet need for yet
`
`another insulin pen for fast- or for long-acting insulins.
`
`40. Prior to the 2003 filing date, several long-acting insulins were available,
`
`including Lantus. Two products, protamine zinc insulin (or PZI) and ultralente, had
`
`been used for decades prior to the introduction of Lantus.
`
`41. Lantus is currently available in vials and in Sanofi’s proprietary
`
`disposable pen, SoloStar. Sanofi does not make a reusable pen for the American
`
`market, although Sanofi does market insulin pen cartridges for use in reusable pens in
`
`other countries.
`
`42. Before SoloStar, Sanofi had supplied Lantus in a reusable pen, OptiClik,
`
`that used Lantus cartridges. However, many of my patients reported that Sanofi’s
`
`OptiClik pen was difficult to refill and unreliable about delivering accurate doses. See
`
`EX1045, 528, Table 2 (showing marked deviation in dosing for OptiClik pens, and
`
`mediocre performance for SoloStar pens). Patients complained that the OptiClik pen
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-14-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`was not working. In my practice, OptiClik was the only truly bad pen that we
`
`experienced.
`
`43. On its introduction, SoloStar was welcomed by Lantus users as a
`
`significant improvement over Sanofi’s defective OptiClik pen but was not recognized
`
`as an unusually good pen in itself.
`
`44.
`
`I did not switch any patients from other pens (other than OptiClik) to
`
`SoloStar, except as an indirect consequence of switching a patient to Lantus as the
`
`preferred insulin. I am unaware of any other clinician switching a patient to SoloStar
`
`simply because of the properties of the pen. I note that Dr. Goland, despite having
`
`practiced at the relevant time, does not indicate that she switched any of her patients to
`
`SoloStar solely or even partially because of its purported ease of use. Again, insulin
`
`drives the prescription, with the delivery mode being determined by the modes
`
`available from the prescribed insulin’s manufacturer. SoloStar is prescribed frequently
`
`(in my practice and elsewhere) because Lantus is a popular insulin, not because it is a
`
`remarkable pen.
`
`3. Comparison to OptiClik, FlexPen, and other available pens
`
`45. Dr. Goland notes that at least two pens with long-acting insulin pre-date
`
`SoloStar—Sanofi’s own OptiClik and Novo Nordisk’s FlexPen—but omits other pens
`
`from her analysis solely because they use a different type of insulin. EX2111, ¶¶27-
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-15-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`30. She entirely overlooks other alternative pens—like the Disetronic pen, which
`
`could be used with any kind of insulin. (H. See EX1046, 61, 62-63 (discussing the
`
`Disetronic pen, listing some of the available insulin pens).
`
`46. While Dr. Goland restricts her focus to “easy to use, disposable” pens
`
`(EX2111, ¶27) , the available pens were already considered easy to use both generally
`
`and for patients with “special challenges”. Id., 57, 68. The emphasis on “disposable”
`
`is meaningless in this context because pens are largely fungible and patients have, if
`
`anything, a preference for reusable pens when they are available for the same
`
`prescribed insulin. EX1047.
`
`47. The FlexPen is a disposable pen that was already considered easy to use
`
`despite the slight differences in injection force that Dr. Goland perceives as
`
`significant. EX1046, 57.2 The Bohannon article is consistent with my experience,
`
`
`2 I note that while the author of the Bohannon article (EX1046, 68) reports a
`
`connection with Novo Nordisk (maker of the FlexPen), many of the authorities on
`
`which Dr. Goland relies have connections to Sanofi. For example, EX2116, 9 (Sanofi
`
`assisted, edited); EX2123, 1 (Sanofi affiliate); EX2126, 4 (Sanofi supported); EX2140
`
`(Sanofi sponsored, edited) EX2143, 10 (Sanofi sponsored); EX2144, 2 (Sanofi
`
`author); EX2184, 3 (purchased content); EX2185 (Sanofi press release).
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-16-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`while the inferences that Dr. Goland draws are not. Dr. Goland does not indicate that
`
`she ever switched a patient from FlexPen to SoloStar solely on the basis of injection
`
`force.
`
`48. Dr. Goland also identifies “suboptimal” dose-stop features in the
`
`FlexPen. EX2111, ¶29. In my experience, this was not a problem for patients. Because
`
`each delivery form has its own protocols, clinicians know that patients must be trained
`
`on the use of the specific equipment involved. With proper training, patients
`
`experienced (and continue to experience) great success with the FlexPen, which is still
`
`on the market. See, for example, EX1057, 5 (showing FlexPen currently used with
`
`Novolog, a rapid-acting insulin). Dr. Goland also fails to note relative FlexPen
`
`advantages, such as its markedly shorter injection time compared to SoloStar.
`
`EX1045, 526 (reporting 10 seconds for SoloStar, 6 seconds for FlexPen).
`
`49. Dr. Goland is correct that Sanofi’s OptiClik pen was unsatisfactory, but I
`
`disagree with the reasons she gives. First, OptiClik was a reusable pen, not a
`
`disposable pen, so to the extent Sanofi considers the distinction between disposable
`
`and reusable pens to be significant, this comparison is wrong. While OptiClik was
`
`difficult to use, in my experience, patient complaints focused on the difficulty in
`
`reloading cartridges into the pen and the difficulty in getting reliable doses. EX1045,
`
`528 (noting OptiClik less trusted than FlexPen). In my experience, the latter problem
`
`was the major concern for patients using OptiClik because diabetes patients must
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-17-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`closely regulate their insulin use, which makes unreliable dosing counterproductive.
`
`Patients just did not trust OptiClik. My patients did not express concerns about
`
`injection force.
`
`50. Dr. Goland states that OptiClik’s bulkiness was also a disadvantage.
`
`EX2111, 28. While Opticlik was a bit wider than SoloStar, width is not necessarily a
`
`disadvantage because it can aid patients with grip or agility problems. For example,
`
`the Basaglar pen (below, bottom pen) is relatively bulky to enhance gripping. The
`
`major problem with Opticlik was unreliability, not width. In any case, I note that the
`
`contested claims do not address bulkiness.
`
`
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-18-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`51. Dr. Goland discusses but dismisses other then-available pens because
`
`they did not use long-acting insulins. Again, the relevance of her testimony to the
`
`present claims is not explained. As far as I can tell, the claims are not limited to long-
`
`acting insulin. Indeed, as discussed above (¶39), SoloStar itself is used with both fast-
`
`and long-acting insulins.
`
`52. Dr. Goland also concludes without explanation that these other pens
`
`(Humalog/Humulin, NovoPen3 and AutoPen Classic) “suffered from some of the
`
`same drawbacks”. EX2111, ¶30. It is not clear which drawbacks she means, which is
`
`important because most of the drawbacks she discusses are not relevant to the
`
`question of unmet need. In any case, her assertion is not consistent with my
`
`experience with these pens, which was that these very pens were regarded as easy to
`
`use. EX1046, 57, 62-63.
`
`4. Background and Treatments
`
`53.
`
` Dr. Goland states that “[t]he Lantus® SoloSTAR® pen fulfilled the
`
`long-felt, but unmet need for an easy-to-use, low injection force pen for administering
`
`a long-acting insulin glargine formulation.” This conclusion is deeply misleading. At
`
`the filing date, insulin glargine was only available as Sanofi’s Lantus. Thus, if insulin
`
`glargine was not available in an adequate pen, this unavailability was the result of
`
`marketing decisions by Sanofi; for example, only supplying Lantus in the defective
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-19-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`OptiClik pen and not making it available in cartridges for other pens, such as the
`
`AutoPen. Sanofi’s marketing decisions are not a technological problem.
`
`54.
`
`In paragraphs 31-41, Dr. Goland lists purported advantages of the
`
`SoloStar pen. While I do not agree with all of her conclusions, I do agree that SoloStar
`
`is an adequate pen for delivering Lantus, a specific insulin that I often prescribe. Said
`
`another way, I like prescribing Lantus SoloStar because I like prescribing Lantus, not
`
`because the SoloStar pen offers any unique advantage to my patients.
`
`55. Apart from the dubious benefit of lower injection force, Dr. Goland
`
`reports several other advantages involving dialing, portability, feedback and ease of
`
`handling. Significantly, she does not report that these advantages were unique to
`
`SoloStar. They were not. For example, while some pens would require greater dial
`
`extension, requiring greater thumb extension, my recollection is that the Disetronic
`
`pen did not. The difference between the maximum extension for SoloStar and the
`
`FlexPen is difficult to discern visually, as my photograph (below) showing SoloStar
`
`(top) and FlexPen (bottom) indicates. The difference is too slight to be of practical
`
`consequence. Similarly, while inaccurate dosing is a serious problem, not all pens
`
`suffered this problem. The significant outlier was Sanofi’s own OptiClik pen, but it
`
`was not typical of insulin pens in its unreliability.
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-20-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56. Dr. Goland also lauds SoloStar as “the first 80U pen” (EX2111, ¶38), but
`
`she is wrong. Once again, at least the Disetronic pen offered this feature years earlier.
`
`EX1046, 82-83 (Table 2: “Minimum/maximum dose (units) … 1/80”). Opticlik also
`
`provided 80U dosing. There is nothing magic about an 80U dose: pens typically have
`
`300U of insulin. Many patients require less than 60U per injection, while as Dr.
`
`Goland notes (EX1056, 60:14-17) some patients require more than 100U per dose.
`
`There were easy work-arounds such as redialing the dose during the injection to
`
`provide the additional amount. None of my patients has ever been held back from
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-21-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`getting the insulin they need by the maximum dial setting on a pen, whether it is 60U
`
`or 80U. For large doses of insulin glargine, a recent study confirmed that the long-
`
`standing practice of going to twice-daily dosing is the better choice anyway. EX1059,
`
`35 (“The first report on using insulin glargine twice daily was published shortly after
`
`its availability”) and 36 (“In conclusion, twice daily insulin glargine results in a
`
`significant improvement in glucose control in selected patients with type 2 diabetes.”).
`
`There was no unmet need in 2003 for an 80U pen and there is no specific need for an
`
`80U pen today.
`
`57. Dr. Goland lauds the disposability of SoloStar, but again other disposable
`
`pens existed years earlier. EX1046, 58 (discussing the pros and cons of “prefilled”
`
`versus reusable pens). As noted above, in my experience, patients generally prefer
`
`reusable pens when they are available for their greater reliability and long-term cost-
`
`savings. In any case, Dr. Goland never explains what need disposability was supposed
`
`to have solved that had not already been solved.
`
`58. Finally, Dr. Goland cites various studies touting how easy SoloStar is to
`
`use and speculating on what advantages it might offer. Fortunately, clinicians are a
`
`sophisticated audience and know to look at the study sponsors when evaluating such
`
`reports. The studies she cites in support of SoloStar are generally sponsored by
`
`Dr. William Biggs Declaration
`
`-22-
`
`Mylan Ex.1048
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`
`
`Sanofi.3 This does not mean that SoloStar is not a good pen, but it would lead a
`
`clinician to question whether any of the marginal benefits the studies identify would
`
`have any actual clinical relevance. For the reason discussed above, in my experience,
`
`patients and clinicians saw SoloStar as simply Sanofi’s proprietary pen for delivering
`
`Lantus with no clinically relevant differences from other pens apart from its use of a
`
`particularly desired insulin.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`59. The most striking thing about Dr. Goland’s declaration is what she did
`
`not say: that she ever switched a patient to Lantus SoloStar for any of the reasons she
`
`
`3 Some of the methodologies were odd. For example, in EX2123, a Sanofi
`
`sponsored study in which the investigators did not generate the data for SoloStar (see
`
`notes to tables 1-3), the needles were different for the different tests (EX2123, 2),
`
`which does not reflect actual patient use and suggests the possibility that the testing
`
`was manipulated to suit Sanofi’s pens. Needle characteristics will affect the required
`
`injection force, thus potentially distorting the results. EX1053, 68:3-87:5. Moreover,
`
`injection force was measured by injecting over paraffin, without touching the paraffin.
`
`EX2123, 3. Again, this is nothing like real-world patient use. This would lead a
`
`reasonable clinician t