Filed on behalf of: Eli Lilly and Company
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Filed: October 4, 2019
`
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Filed: October 4, 2019
`
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Teva Fails to Rebut the Petition’s Strong Case of Obviousness ................... 3
`A.
`Teva’s Purported Concerns about the Blood-Brain Barrier Are
`Incorrect............................................................................................. 7
`Humanized Anti-CGRP Antibodies Were Expected To Access
`the Site of Action ..............................................................................10
`Teva’s Unfounded Safety Concerns Do Not Support
`Patentability ......................................................................................12
`1.
`Clinical Studies Demonstrated that the CGRP Pathway
`Could Be Safely Antagonized To Treat Migraine ...................12
`Long-Acting Ligand Antagonists Had Desirable Benefits
`and Did Not Raise Safety Concerns ........................................14
`The Prior Art Would Not Have Dissuaded a POSA from
`Pursuing a Humanized Anti-CGRP Antagonist Antibody
`for Treating Migraine ..............................................................16
`Teva’s Hypothetical “Spare Receptor Theory” and Ligand
`Cross-Binding Concerns Are Incorrect .............................................19
`Novartis Is Inapposite .......................................................................20
`E.
`IV. Teva’s Alleged Secondary Considerations Do Not Support
`Nonobviousness ..........................................................................................21
`A.
`Teva’s Evidence Is Not Commensurate with the Scope of the
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................21
`Teva’s Secondary Considerations Lack Nexus to the Claims ............23
`Teva’s Reliance on Industry Acclaim Is Misplaced ..........................24
`
`B.
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`i
`
`
`
`D.
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`Teva Failed to Establish Unexpected Results or Industry
`Skepticism ........................................................................................25
`Teva’s Purported Evidence of Commercial Success, Licensing,
`and Long-Felt Need Do Not Support Patentability ............................26
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................27
`
`E.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 4
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 3, 23
`Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc.,
`713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 18, 24
`Cole Kepro Int’l, LLC v. VSR Indus., Inc.,
`695 F. App’x 566 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 27
`Equistar Chemicals, LP v. ExxonMobil Chemical Patents Inc.,
`IPR2017-01534, Paper 64 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2018) ................................................ 4
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 22
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 23
`In re Kubin,
`561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 4
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd.,
`923 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 20
`Paint Point Med. Sys., Inc. v. Blephex, LLC,
`IPR2016-01670, Paper 44 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2018) ............................................ 26
`S. Ala. Med. Sci. Found. v. Gnosis S.P.A.,
`808 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`
`BBB
`
`CGRP
`
`FDA
`
`IPR
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`Blood-brain barrier
`
`Calcitonin gene-related peptide
`
`U.S. Food and Drug Administration
`
`Inter partes review
`
`Italicized text
`
`Emphasis added unless otherwise indicated
`
`Lilly or Petitioner Eli Lilly and Company
`
`MAb
`
`MAP
`
`POSA
`
`Teva or Patent
`Owner
`
`Monoclonal antibody
`
`Mean arterial pressure
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH
`
`’907 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,884,907
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The challenged claims are broadly directed to a method of treating headache
`
`using any humanized IgG anti-CGRP antagonist antibody having properties already
`
`known in the art. To contest motivation and expectation of success, Teva argues that
`
`a POSA would not have expected to effectively and safely treat headache using such
`
`antibodies—relying on purported safety concerns, the blood-brain barrier (“BBB”),
`
`the “spare receptor” theory, and cross-binding of CGRP to ancillary receptors.
`
`But the claims do not require clinical efficacy and do not mention safety.
`
`Moreover, Teva’s patent does not acknowledge or even suggest that either the single
`
`humanized antibody or its derivatives exemplified in the specification provide
`
`solutions for any of these alleged concerns—persuasive evidence the concerns were
`
`not real. The disconnect between Teva’s critique of the prior art versus the sparse
`
`disclosure of the ’907 patent highlights a fatal deficiency in Teva’s obviousness
`
`position: improperly imposing a heightened standard for motivation and expectation
`
`of success. Indeed, the law is clear that obviousness requires only a reasonable
`
`expectation of success, not absolute predictability.
`
`The evidence confirms that Teva’s concerns are illusory. By November 2005,
`
`systemically administered CGRP antagonists had repeatedly been shown to be safe
`
`and effective, with a peripheral site of action. Time-and-again, the art encouraged
`
`making longer-acting CGRP antagonists, including humanized antibodies, for
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`treating migraine. Antagonizing the CGRP pathway had also proven clinically
`
`effective for treating migraine, confirming a reasonable expectation of success. The
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. Claim Construction
`The Board correctly construed “treating” as an “approach” for achieving a
`
`desired purpose without requiring achievement of any clinical result. Paper 11, 10-
`
`11; Pet., 20-21. Teva disagrees, but fails to demonstrate any error with the Board’s
`
`construction. Indeed, Teva and its experts disregard the patent’s express definition
`
`of “treating” as an “approach for obtaining a beneficial or desired clinical result,”
`
`which is a mere statement of intent. POR, 10-11 (further admitting that “treating” is
`
`analogous to a “physician’s goal”); Ex. 2269 ¶¶19-20; Ex. 2266 ¶53; Ex. 1343,
`
`19:25-20:8; 23:8-19. The term “treating” therefore does not require actually
`
`achieving a clinical response.
`
`The ’907 patent defines an “effective amount” to include an amount sufficient
`
`to affect “biochemical” and “histological” symptoms, which Teva again ignores.
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:3-22; POR, 12, Pet., 21-22. The Board invited testimony on whether
`
`such symptoms include stimulated cAMP formulation, but Teva provided none.
`
`Paper 11, 12-13. As Dr. Charles explains, cAMP stimulation was recognized as a
`
`direct biochemical response to elevated CGRP levels, which are characteristic of
`
`migraine. Ex. 1340 ¶¶5-10; Ex. 1016 ¶¶27-39; Ex. 1001, 26:20-28 (listing blocking
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`cAMP activation as a property of an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody); Ex. 1303,
`
`61:15-62:12; Ex. 1343, 28:18-29:18. Thus, an “effective amount” includes amounts
`
`sufficient to reduce biochemical or histological symptoms (such as cAMP
`
`stimulation) without requiring any clinical result. See Ex. 1343, 33:17-34:6.
`
`III. Teva Fails to Rebut the Petition’s Strong Case of Obviousness
`Teva’s obviousness arguments rest on purported concerns about whether an
`
`anti-CGRP antagonist antibody would have been expected to effectively and safely
`
`treat migraine. E.g., POR, 2, 10-11, 24-25. The claims, however, do not require
`
`clinical efficacy and do not mention safety. Supra §II; Paper 11, 10-11.
`
`Consequently, Lilly does not have an “exacting burden of showing a reasonable
`
`expectation of success” that the claimed methods would be clinically effective and
`
`safe. Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 962-63 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Teva’s own specification undermines its current assessment of the prior art: it
`
`neither acknowledges nor provides solutions for any of Teva’s alleged concerns.
`
`Teva’s patent contains no clinical data and no safety data whatsoever. Ex. 1303,
`
`55:7-57:19. As Teva’s expert Dr. Foord testified, the limited animal studies in Teva’s
`
`patent “will never satisfy concerns about safety and efficacy.” Ex. 1300, 173:20-
`
`175:6; see also Ex. 1303, 31:8-14, 54:12-23; infra §III.C.
`
`Similarly, Teva now argues that a POSA would have believed that an anti-
`
`CGRP antibody must cross the BBB to be clinically effective (POR, 38-43), but
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`Teva’s patent does not address it. Ex. 1340 ¶¶54-56; Ex. 1345, 61:5-65:2; infra
`
`§III.A-B. Teva’s patent similarly fails to address the spare receptor theory or safety
`
`concerns about receptor cross-binding. Infra §III.D.
`
`The disconnect between Teva’s assessment of the prior art versus the paucity
`
`of its own disclosure illuminates the inappropriately heightened standard for
`
`motivation and expectation of success that Teva relies upon. Equistar Chemicals,
`
`LP v. ExxonMobil Chemical Patents Inc., IPR2017-01534, Paper 64, 40 (PTAB
`
`Dec. 7, 2018) (holding claims obvious where “Patent Owner’s arguments demand
`
`more of the prior art than is provided by the sparse disclosure of the ’709 patent”);
`
`see also Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(affirming obviousness where purported safety concerns were not addressed in the
`
`invalidated patent); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (all that is
`
`required is a reasonable expectation of success).
`
`Regardless of the standard applied, the art provides express motivation and a
`
`reasonable expectation of success for treating headache with a humanized anti-
`
`CGRP antagonist antibody.
`
`Olesen established in a Phase II clinical trial that antagonizing the CGRP
`
`pathway effectively treats migraine, validating “CGRP antagonism as a new
`
`therapeutic principle” for treating migraine. Ex. 1025, 1104, 1108-1109; Ex. 1029,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`119(S26). Prior art researchers “expect[ed] that CGRP antagonists will be effective
`
`anti-migraine drugs.” Ex. 1024, 422. Teva’s experts agree:
`
`• Dr. Ferrari wrote in 2007 that Olesen “firmly establish[ed] blockade of
`
`the CGRP pathway as a novel and important new emerging treatment
`
`principle” for migraine. Ex. 1332, 443.
`
`• Based on Olesen, Dr. Ferrari in 2005 praised “CGRP antagonists” as
`
`“promising, new antimigraine drugs.” Ex. 1290, 657.
`
`• Based on Olesen, Dr. Rapoport in 2005 called for “[p]reventive drugs”
`
`for migraine headache that “antagonis[ed] the effect of CGRP.”
`
`Ex. 1297, S119.
`
`Despite these contemporaneous admissions, Teva attempts to limit Olesen’s
`
`teachings to small-molecule receptor antagonists. But Tan expressly discloses that
`
`targeting the CGRP ligand with antibodies and targeting CGRP receptors (e.g., with
`
`CGRP8-37 or Olesen’s clinically effective BIBN4096BS) were “alternative”
`
`approaches for antagonizing the CGRP pathway. Ex. 1022, 566, 571; see also
`
`Ex. 1040, 182 (“inhibition of CGRP or antagonism of CGRP receptors could be a
`
`viable therapeutic target for the pharmacological treatment of migraine”); Ex. 1033,
`
`95. Multiple ligand antagonists, including humanized anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibodies, had been disclosed for treating migraine. Pet., 26-28; Ex. 1096, 567,
`
`570; Ex. 1082, Abstract; Ex. 1240, 923.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`The advantageous properties of anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies were also
`
`known: Tan’s antibody specifically bound and antagonized CGRP in vitro and in
`
`vivo, including in the same animal model Teva used to support its original claims to
`
`treating migraine. Exs. 1021, 1022; Pet., 16-17. Although Teva argues Tan is a basic
`
`research paper having “nothing to do with humans or treatment” (POR, 4), Dr. Tan
`
`contemporaneously wrote that there is “no reason” why humanized anti-CGRP
`
`antagonist antibodies should not be developed and used for treating migraine.
`
`Ex. 1287, 247; see also Ex. 1096, 567, 570 (contemporaneously disclosing
`
`humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies for treating migraine).
`
`Remarkably, Teva argues it was unclear whether CGRP levels increase during
`
`migraine. POR, 18-20. This is irrelevant, as Olesen had validated CGRP
`
`antagonism as a therapeutic target. Ex. 1340 ¶¶25-30. It is also incorrect, as
`
`numerous prior-art publications reported increased CGRP levels during migraine.
`
`Exs. 1043, 1045, 2066, 2067. Indeed, the background section of Teva’s patent
`
`acknowledges that “levels of CGRP … are elevated in patients during migraine
`
`headache.” Ex. 1001, 2:24-27 (citing Ex. 1043); see also Ex. 1332, 443 (Dr. Ferrari
`
`distinguishing Teva’s cited Tvedskov reference and publishing that CGRP levels
`
`increase in the headache phase of severe migraine).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`A. Teva’s Purported Concerns about the Blood-Brain Barrier Are
`Incorrect
`Teva incorrectly asserts that a POSA would have understood that anti-
`
`migraine therapeutics must cross the BBB, and thus larger molecules like anti-CGRP
`
`antagonist antibodies would not have been expected to treat migraine. POR, 38-42;
`
`Ex. 1340 ¶¶54-56; Ex. 1345, 61:5-65:2.
`
`Extensive prior-art evidence established that peripheral antagonism of the
`
`CGRP pathway treats migraine. Using the same animal model used in Teva’s patent,
`
`Petersen 2004 showed that Olesen’s BIBN4096BS selectively blocked CGRP in the
`
`periphery (i.e., in vessels without a BBB) and not in central pial arteries. Compare
`
`Ex. 1090, Abstract, with Ex. 1001, 70:8-71:9; see also Ex. 1345, 52:6-54:7;
`
`Ex. 1340 ¶¶36-42.
`
`Teva contests whether pial arteries possessed a BBB. POR, 40-41. But the
`
`prior art recognized that “pial arteries … have a [BBB].” Ex. 2068, 39. Further, the
`
`authors of Petersen 2004 and numerous others expressly recognized the peripheral
`
`site of action: “[t]he present study strongly suggests that the clinically effective
`
`migraine drug BIBN4096BS (Olesen et al., 2004) does not cross the BBB.”
`
`Ex. 1090, 703; see also Ex. 2215, 75 (“BIBN4096BS does not appear to pass the
`
`[BBB] freely”); Ex. 1031, 326 (Dr. Ferrari’s advisor, Dr. Saxena, concluded that
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`“BIBN4096BS does not seem to penetrate the [BBB].”). Even Teva’s expert
`
`admitted it was “unlikely” BIBN4096BS crossed the BBB. Ex. 1343, 76:12-77:8.
`
`Teva also criticizes Petersen 2004 because it is an animal study. POR, 41.
`
`But Teva disregards another prior-art study, Petersen 2005, that confirmed in humans
`
`that antagonizing CGRP in the periphery prevented CGRP-induced headache—with
`
`no effect on central vasodilatation. Ex. 1333; Ex. 1340 ¶¶43-47. Petersen 2005
`
`monitored both the middle cerebral artery and cerebral blood flow using the “best
`
`available” technology, concluding that BIBN4096BS “prevents or treats headache”
`
`in an extracerebral manner, i.e., in areas “devoid of a blood-brain barrier.” Ex. 1333,
`
`211; Ex. 1345, 78:2-22.
`
`Ignoring the human data (and despite its criticism of animal studies), Teva
`
`relies principally on three animal studies, Storer, Fischer, and Levy, to argue that
`
`crossing the BBB was necessary. POR, 39-40. But these studies did not change the
`
`prior-art understanding that peripheral antagonism of the CGRP pathway treats
`
`migraine. Ex. 1340 ¶¶48-53. Indeed, Storer, Fischer, and Levy used invasive,
`
`“open-window” animal models that expose and manipulate the brain’s dura mater—
`
`criticized by Teva’s expert as non-physiologic. Ex. 2298, 699; Ex. 2310, 5878;
`
`Ex. 2307, 1172; Ex. 1345, 48:8-49:11; Ex. 1340 ¶¶48-49. Levy further suffered
`
`from other experimental limitations, including failing to evaluate any CGRP
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`antagonist and failing to measure neuronal activities for an adequate duration.
`
`Ex. 2298, 699; Ex. 1047, 56, 59-60; Ex. 1345, 60:1-61:1; Ex. 1340 ¶¶51-52, 31-35.
`
`Regardless, even these studies support a peripheral site of action. Ex. 1340
`
`¶¶50, 53. For example, Storer and Fischer collectively observed that central and
`
`peripheral BIBN4096BS administration suppressed activity of the trigeminocervical
`
`complex, further indicating that peripheral antagonism was effective. Ex. 2307,
`
`1175-1176; Ex. 2310, Abstract; Ex. 1340 ¶50.
`
`Other prior-art migraine treatments were similarly understood to act
`
`peripherally. Ex. 1340 ¶¶18-21, 57-62; see also id., ¶¶63-66. Sumatriptan, which
`
`Teva admits inhibits CGRP release, poorly penetrates the BBB, indicating a
`
`“peripheral point of action.” Ex. 1281, S73; Ex. 1303, 23:22-24:22; Ex. 2291,
`
`Abstract; POR, 13, 40 n.11. Other triptans with better BBB penetration showed no
`
`additional clinical benefit versus sumatriptan. Ex. 2291, 2. Ergotamine and
`
`atenolol, other prior-art migraine treatments, also acted peripherally. Ex. 1334, 329;
`
`Ex. 1241, Abstract.
`
`Teva’s cited animal studies did not dissuade development of other
`
`peripherally acting migraine drugs beyond BIBN4096BS, sumatriptan, ergotamine,
`
`and atenolol. These included CGRP-binding aptamers, which showed no
`
`“propensity to traverse the blood/brain barrier.” Ex. 1310, 2244; Exs. 1082, 1240;
`
`Ex. 1340 ¶24. Dr. Messlinger, the senior author of Teva’s cited Fischer reference,
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`was himself investigating anti-CGRP aptamers for treating migraine. Exs. 1240,
`
`2310. A POSA would have reasonably expected an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody
`
`to successfully treat headache without crossing the BBB.
`
`B. Humanized Anti-CGRP Antibodies Were Expected To Access the
`Site of Action
`Teva contends that Tan’s full-length antibody failed to engage in the synaptic
`
`cleft. POR, 3, 17, 36-37. But Tan expressly disclosed that MAb C4.19 “clearly
`
`diffuses into the synaptic cleft,” consistent with multiple experiments with
`
`polyclonal anti-CGRP antibodies establishing in vivo effectiveness. Ex. 1022, 571
`
`(citing Ex. 1021); Exs. 1048-1050; Pet., 43-44; Ex. 1339 ¶¶15-39. Tan 1994 showed
`
`that “the concentration of [full-length] antibody had reached equilibrium in the
`
`synaptic cleft after 45 min.” Ex. 1021, 709; Ex. 1339 ¶21. Teva’s pharmacologist,
`
`Dr. Foord, did not consider Tan 1994 in preparing his declaration. Ex. 1343, 53:16-
`
`20.1
`
`
`1 Dr. Foord testified on cross that Tan 1994 was not considered an important
`
`publication. Ex. 1343, 56:24-57:2. When asked who thought this, he was instructed
`
`by counsel not to answer. Id., 57:3-7. Dr. Foord subsequently volunteered that it’s
`
`a “perfectly well-performed paper.” Id., 57:9-17.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`consistent with well-understood principles of
`antibody
`
`Further,
`
`pharmacokinetics and the express guidance of Tan, a POSA would have expected
`
`that longer distribution times and/or higher doses would improve distribution of full-
`
`length antibodies to the synaptic cleft, enhancing response. Ex. 1339 ¶¶24-34;
`
`Ex. 1022, 571; Ex. 1247, 3972. Tan explains that its results were “consistent with
`
`reported antibody distribution characteristics,” in which full-length antibody
`
`molecules take a longer time to distribute than their relatively smaller Fab’
`
`fragments, particularly within the short time frames tested. Ex. 1022, 571; see also
`
`Ex. 1016 ¶143. Indeed, Tan observed a more pronounced 16% response when a
`
`higher antibody dose and a longer, two-hour incubation time were employed.
`
`Ex. 1022, 569; Pet., 16-17, 44-45; Ex. 1339 ¶¶24-26.
`
`Teva contends that Tan’s full-length antibody dosing instructions for the rat
`
`saphenous nerve assay are “speculati[ve]” and unrelated to migraine (POR, 4, 36-
`
`37), but it is undisputed that Teva followed Tan’s instructions in its patent examples
`
`employing the rat saphenous model, using both larger doses and longer distribution
`
`times. Ex. 1016 ¶¶96-108. Moreover, Teva relied on results from that assay to
`
`support claims for treating migraine. Pet., 1, 45-46. Following the express teachings
`
`of the prior art, as Teva did, is not inventive.
`
`Teva’s remaining synaptic cleft arguments are also meritless. Dr. Foord, who
`
`admits he is not an antibody expert, nonetheless argues antibodies were too large to
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`access the synaptic cleft. Ex. 2266 ¶90; Ex. 1343, 66:9-68:10, 70:4-9. His analysis
`
`was flawed: he referenced IgE antibodies rather than the claimed IgG antibodies
`
`(which are smaller); failed to evaluate the size of relevant synapses (which are
`
`larger); and ignored the mobile, three-dimensional nature of antibodies. Ex. 2266
`
`¶90; Ex. 1339 ¶¶35-39. As demonstrated by Tan and others, a POSA would have
`
`reasonably expected an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody to engage at the synaptic
`
`cleft.
`
`C. Teva’s Unfounded Safety Concerns Do Not Support Patentability
`Teva’s unfounded safety allegations (POR, 24-35) are not addressed in Teva’s
`
`patent, which contains no safety or clinical data whatsoever. Nevertheless, by
`
`November 2005, antagonizing the CGRP pathway was recognized as safe and
`
`clinically effective. Ex. 1340 §VII, ¶¶125-126.
`
`1.
`
`Clinical Studies Demonstrated that the CGRP Pathway Could
`Be Safely Antagonized To Treat Migraine
`In 2004, Olesen confirmed that antagonizing the CGRP pathway in human
`
`patients produced no serious side effects and no cardiovascular events. Ex. 1025,
`
`1109; Ex. 1340 ¶¶82-83; Pet., 24-25; Ex. 1303, 84:13-22, 73:8-18. Contradicting
`
`Teva’s argument that “Olesen says nothing about cerebrovascular safety” (POR, 29),
`
`Olesen states that BIBN4096BS “had no constrictor effect on the middle cerebral,
`
`radial, or superficial temporal artery or on regional cerebral blood flow, blood
`
`pressure, or heart rate.” Ex. 1025, 1108.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`Similarly, Iovino and Petersen reported “a very favourable safety profile” for
`
`BIBN4096BS in human volunteers. Ex. 1042, Abstract (reporting no “clinically
`
`relevant, drug-induced changes” in blood pressure, pulse rate, blood flow, or vital
`
`signs); Ex. 2019, Abstract; Ex. 1340 ¶¶84-87; Ex. 1303, 84:23-85:7, 87:1-11, 90:22-
`
`92:20. In 2005, in view of these studies, both of Teva’s clinician experts
`
`independently praised “CGRP antagonists” as promising, safe antimigraine drugs
`
`“without vascular side effects.” Ex. 1290, 657; Ex. 1297, S119.
`
`Olesen’s safety results were also consistent with—and even improved upon—
`
`sumatriptan. Ex. 1340 ¶¶18, 93; Ex. 1025, 1108; Ex. 1031, 326; Ex. 2010, 2561.
`
`Despite inducing “transient” blood pressure increases, sumatriptan was considered
`
`“very safe” when prescribed to appropriate migraine patients. Ex. 1340 ¶93;
`
`Ex. 1282, 1521; Ex. 1308, 1673; Ex. 1303, 211:2-9. Indeed, Teva’s clinician experts
`
`advocated daily, long-term triptan administration for migraine prevention. Ex. 1294,
`
`Abstract, 487; Ex. 1295, Abstract, 1405; Ex. 1340 ¶19.
`
`Contrary to Teva’s arguments (POR, 31), safety lessons from antagonizing the
`
`CGRP pathway with BIBN4096BS were pertinent for therapeutics that directly
`
`targeted CGRP, as the prior art recognized that targeting CGRP and its receptor were
`
`known, alternative techniques. Ex. 1022, 566, 571; Ex. 1016 ¶¶153-156; Ex. 1040,
`
`182; Ex. 1340 ¶¶22-24, 86; Ex. 1339 ¶¶40-44, 53-58. For example, citing
`
`Wimalawansa, researchers had developed prior art aptamers that bound CGRP for
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`treating migraine. Ex. 1082, Abstract, 2 (ref. 19). Anti-CGRP aptamers
`
`demonstrated efficacy in a cranial model similar to Teva’s patent examples, as well
`
`as vascular safety: “[b]asal blood flow and systemic arterial pressure were
`
`unchanged.” Ex. 1240, 923; Ex. 1340 ¶80; Ex. 1339 ¶¶43, 56-58, 60; Ex. 1001,
`
`70:8-71:9. The prior art explained that “aptamers can be thought of as … analogs
`
`to antibodies,” recognizing their “long in vivo half-life” as a benefit. Ex. 1309,
`
`Abstract; Ex. 1240, 923; Ex. 1082, Abstract, 7; Ex. 1340 ¶24; Ex. 1339 ¶¶57, 60.
`
`2.
`
`Long-Acting Ligand Antagonists Had Desirable Benefits and
`Did Not Raise Safety Concerns
`Teva argues that the transient and mild increase in blood pressure observed in
`
`Tan would raise safety concerns that could be exacerbated by the long half-lives of
`
`CGRP-blocking antibodies. POR, 27-30. To the contrary, a POSA would have
`
`viewed anti-CGRP drugs with longer half-lives as desirable for preventative
`
`migraine treatments, without posing safety concerns. Ex. 1340 ¶¶11-24, 90-100;
`
`Ex. 1339 ¶¶33, 53-76; Pet., 29-30.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`As Dr. Balthasar explains,2 a POSA would have understood that the minor
`
`blood-pressure increase in Tan’s anesthetized rats normalized within 10 to 15
`
`minutes of administering MAb C4.19, and “had no relationship to the half-life” of
`
`the antibody. Ex. 1339 ¶¶62-66; Ex. 1022, 568. A POSA would not have viewed
`
`minor, transient blood-pressure increases as a safety concern, as similar increases
`
`observed with sumatriptan and other CGRP-pathway antagonists did not deter their
`
`development or FDA approval. Ex. 1340 ¶¶90-94; Ex. 1339 ¶¶65, 72-76; Ex. 1303,
`
`25:11-17.
`
`Other references further confirm that anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies did not
`
`have any chronic blood-pressure or vascular effects. Ex. 1339 ¶¶67-71; Ex. 1340
`
`¶¶92-102. For instance, Wong conducted blood pressure testing on the same
`
`antibody (4901) evaluated in Teva’s patent and concluded that it “had no significant
`
`effect on [mean arterial pressure] and heart rate.” Ex. 1033, 101; Ex. 1001, 52:39.
`
`Similarly, Andrew confirmed that immunized animals with “high levels of
`
`circulating antibodies to rat CGRP … did not show any signs of physical or
`
`behavioural abnormality” after 10-15 weeks. Ex. 1055, 88, 93. Salmon and other
`
`
`2 In contrast to Dr. Balthasar’s antibody-pharmacology expertise, Drs. Foord and
`
`Ferrari admitted to tenuous antibody knowledge. Ex. 1300, 33:8-11; Ex. 1303,
`
`69:10-16.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`researchers disabled αCGRP production entirely in knockout mice, and rather than
`
`experiencing any safety concerns, they claimed therapeutic uses of anti-CGRP
`
`antagonist antibodies for treating neurogenic inflammatory pain. Ex. 1027, ¶[0069],
`
`claims 8, 9; Ex. 1026, claim 2; Ex. 1288, Abstract. Teva disregards this compelling
`
`evidence of safety entirely.
`
`Teva incorrectly attempts to undermine Tan’s disclosures by characterizing
`
`Tan as a “basic research paper” and citing Dr. Ferrari’s purported personal
`
`knowledge of its authors. Ex. 2269 ¶147; POR, 4. But in describing his own work,
`
`Dr. Tan wrote in 1994 that there was “no reason” why humanized anti-CGRP
`
`monoclonal antibodies should not be developed and used as “therapeutic agents” for
`
`migraine and other diseases. Ex. 1287, 247.
`
`3.
`
`The Prior Art Would Not Have Dissuaded a POSA from
`Pursuing a Humanized Anti-CGRP Antagonist Antibody for
`Treating Migraine
`Ignoring more recent prior art (supra §§III.C.1-2 and below), Teva cites
`
`several early studies, largely published before Wimalawansa proposed exploring
`
`humanized anti-CGRP antibodies, to support its hypothetical safety arguments.
`
`POR, 25-27; Ex. 2269 ¶¶104-124. But none of Teva’s cited studies indicate that
`
`antagonizing endogenous CGRP—as an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody would have
`
`been expected
`
`to do—would have had any effect on cardiovascular or
`
`cerebrovascular safety. Ex. 1340 ¶¶67-74; Ex. 1303, 108:25-133:7.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`For example, Teva relies on early studies reporting the effects of administering
`
`exogenous CGRP (Exs. 2058, 2079, 2139), which increases CGRP levels instead of
`
`antagonizing endogenous CGRP. Ex. 1340 ¶70. Teva also relies on early studies
`
`attempting to discern CGRP’s biological effects without the benefit of a specific
`
`antagonist, making it impossible to separate the effects of CGRP from other
`
`vasopeptides. Id., ¶¶71-72; Exs. 2150, 2151, 2154, 2070, 2089, 2209. In the one
`
`study that used CGRP8-37 (a receptor antagonist) under physiological conditions, no
`
`vascular changes were observed. Ex. 2152, 165; Ex. 1340 ¶73; Ex. 1303, 111:23-
`
`119:13.
`
`Teva also ignored more recent prior-art studies demonstrating that blocking
`
`the effects of endogenous CGRP with specific antagonists does not worsen ischemic
`
`events. Ex. 1340 ¶¶75-81; Ex. 1283, 498 (“locally released CGRP does not function
`
`as a cardioprotective agent”); Ex. 1284, Abstract (CGRP-antagonism had no effect
`
`on infarct size); Ex. 1303, 134:23-136:17, 140:5-7, 142:2-7. Two 2003 publications
`
`similarly concluded that endogenous CGRP played no major role in cardiovascular
`
`regulation, including in late-stage heart failure. Ex. 1318, 76; Ex. 1285, Abstract;
`
`Ex. 1303, 142:24-143:22.
`
`Teva even overlooked a 2004 publication from Dr. Ferrari’s advisor, Dr.
`
`Saxena, studying global and regional cardio- and cerebro-vascular effects of
`
`antagonizing the CGRP pathway with BIBN4096BS. Ex. 1263, Abstract; Ex. 1303,
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`97:10-98:2. No undesired effects were observed, even at high doses, leading the
`
`investigators to conclude that “endogenous CGRP does not play an important role in
`
`regulating systemic and regional haemodynamics.” Ex. 1263, 296; Ex. 1303, 102:9-
`
`106:19. Summarizing the pre-clinical and clinical data, Dr. Saxena advocated the
`
`use of CGRP antagonists “in patients with coronary artery disease.” Ex. 1031, 326;
`
`Ex. 1340 ¶¶88-89.
`
`Teva’s arguments regarding the risk of stroke in sub-populations of migraine
`
`patients are irrelevant. POR, 25-27; Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson
`
`Pharm., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (rejecting patient sub-population
`
`arguments where the “claims at issue do not distinguish between target patient
`
`populations”). No correlation existed between migraine and stroke for two-thirds of
`
`migraine patients. Ex. 2157, 536; Ex. 1040, 177; Ex. 1303, 193:3-10; Ex. 1340
`
`¶108.
`
`Moreover, the absolute risk of stroke and myocardial ischemia in young
`
`women with migraine was very low. Ex. 2157, 535; Ex. 1303, 190:3-194:23;
`
`Ex. 1315, Abstract; Ex. 1340 ¶¶106-111. Teva also ignores that anti-migraine
`
`treatments could be contraindicated in patients with particular risk factors, as had
`
`been done with sumatriptan and ergots, and such concerns did not discourage
`
`researchers from pursuing anti-CGRP therapies in the prior art (e.g., aptamers,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01711
`Patent No. 9,884,907
`antibodies, and BIBN4096BS). Ex. 1340 ¶¶11-24, 112-113; Ex. 1339 ¶¶77-79;
`
`Ex. 1282, 1520; Ex. 1290, 564-565; Exs. 1026, 1027.
`
`D. Teva’s Hypothetical “Spare Receptor Theory” and Ligand Cross-
`Binding Concerns Are Incorrect
`Teva asserts that targeting the CGRP ligand would be undesirable based on
`
`Teva’s theory that “less than 1% of [CGRP] receptors needed to be bound by ligand
`
`to elicit a full response.” P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
