`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEURELIS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL P. WERMELING, Pharm.D.
`
`
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`BASIS FOR OPINION .................................................................................. 2
`
`RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................13
`
`POSA ...........................................................................................................18
`
`Ethanol Versus Dehydrated Ethanol ............................................................20
`
`III.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND .............................................22
`
`IV.
`
`GROUNDS FOR INVALIDATING THE ‘876 PATENT CLAIMS .........26
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`THE HISTORY OF INTRANASAL BENZODIAZEPINE DELIVERY ..29
`
`Summary ......................................................................................................29
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................30
`
`Nasal Anatomy As Related to Intranasal Drug Delivery ............................32
`
`VI.
`
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND LONG-FELT NEED IN THE DESIGN
`
`OF NASAL PRODUCTS FOR SYSTEMIC DRUG ADMINISTRATION
`
`INCLUDES TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL AS MARKETING
`
`CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................................36
`
`A.
`
`Exclusion of Market Considerations ............................................................36
`
`i
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Testified That he was Unaware of the Composition
`
`of Patent Owner’s Intranasal Diazepam Spray, Valtoco, and He Could Not Answer
`
`Whether Valtoco Satisfied any Long-Felt Need ......................................................37
`
`C.
`
`Commercial Success Factors – Formulation and Commercial
`
`Considerations ..........................................................................................................40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Product Design Considerations ....................................................................42
`
`Pharmacokinetics And Pharmacodynamics Of Nasal Benzodiazepines In
`
`Healthy Volunteers ..................................................................................................49
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Experience With Intranasal Delivery Of Benzodiazepines For
`
`Treatment Of Seizures Prior To 2009 ......................................................................53
`
`VII. THE PATHWAY TO FORMULATING THE SOLUTION ......................58
`
`1.
`
`There Were Many Nasal Delivery Systems And Many Non-Technical
`
`Problems To Their Commercialization ....................................................................61
`
`2.
`
`Background In The Intranasal Art ...............................................................72
`
`VIII. GWOZDZ, MEEZAN’962 and CARTT‘784 MAKE ALL THE CLAIMS
`
`OF THE ‘876 PATENT OBVIOUS. .......................................................................84
`
`A.
`
`Gwozdz (Exhibit 1014) ................................................................................85
`
`ii
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`1.
`
`A POSA Would Have Used Gwozdz’ Disclosure of Ternary Co-Solvent
`
`Systems Such as Tocopherol+ Ethanol+Benzyl Alcohol, and Gwozdz’ Disclosure
`
`is Not Limited to Administration to One Nostril .....................................................86
`
`(a) A POSA Would Expect that a Ternary Co-Solvent System
`
`(Tocopherol+Ethanol+Benzyl Alcohol) Could Solubilize More Diazepam
`
`Than a Binary Co-Solvent System (Tocopherol+Ethanol) ..........................86
`
`(b) Gwozdz’ Ternary Co-Solvent Diazepam Solution in a Reduced
`
`Concentration Can be Administered to Both Nostrils to Deliver the Same
`
`Amount of Diazepam and Avoid Possibility of Precipitating Out ..............91
`
`2.
`
`The Combination of Ethanol and Benzyl Alcohol and Diazepam for Use in
`
`Treating Seizures in Humans was Well Known ......................................................92
`
`B.
`
`A POSA HAD THE MOTIVATION TO COMBINE THE TEACHINGS
`
`OF GWOZDZ, MEEZAN’962 AND CARTT‘784 .................................................98
`
`1.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, a POSA would not be deterred from
`
`applying Meezan’962’s teaching of the use of alkyl glycosides in connection with
`
`non-aqueous solutions. .............................................................................................99
`
`2.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, a POSA would not be deterred from
`
`applying the teachings of Cartt’784 to the disclosures of Gwozdz. Rather, the
`
`POSA would be motivated to combine the two references. ..................................100
`
`iii
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`IX.
`
`The ‘558 Provisional Application’s (Exhibit 1008) incorporation by
`
`reference of the Sigma Catalogue (Exhibit 2006) does not convey to a POSA either
`
`a directed disclosure of alkyl glycosides as absorption enhancer or even that the
`
`inventors knew that alkyl glycosides would necessarily work as such. ................103
`
`X.
`
`THERE ARE NO UNEXPECTED RESULTS OR CRITICALITY
`
`ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OF THE RECITED ALCOHOL RANGES OR
`
`AMOUNTS ............................................................................................................108
`
`A.
`
`A POSA Would Have Known that Tocopherols Contribute to Increased
`
`Bioavailability. .......................................................................................................111
`
`B.
`
`A POSA Would Have Expected Solutions to Have Higher Bioavailabilities
`
`Than Suspensions ...................................................................................................112
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Diazepam is 100% Bioavailable For Nasal and Oral Absorption .............113
`
`The Table 11-3 data for the solution is not evidence of any criticality
`
`associated with the recited claim ranges for ethanol and benzyl alcohol. .............117
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Nasally-Administered Diazepam’s 100% Nas-Oral Bioavailability .........120
`
`No Data Regarding Bioavailability of Solutions Having Benzyl Alcohol
`
`and Ethanol Other Than in Table 11-3 (10.5% benzyl alcohol and 18.07% ethanol
`
`(dehydrated)) ..........................................................................................................121
`
`iv
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`XI.
`
`A POSA WOULD INCLUDE BENZYL ALCOHOL IN AN
`
`INTRANASAL SPRAY FOR ADDRESSING ACUTE LIFE THREATENING
`
`HEALTH SITUATIONS, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY IRRITATION THE
`
`BENZYL ALCOHOL MIGHT CAUSE ...............................................................121
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................124
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL P. WERMELING, Pharm.D.
`
`I, Daniel P. Wermeling, do hereby make the following declaration:
`
`I have been retained by Hoffmann & Baron, LLP counsel for Petitioner,
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., to provide my expert opinion in connection with the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876 (“the ‘876 Patent”)
`
`in IPR2019-00451. My Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`2. My opinions in this expert declaration support Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to the Petition (Paper No. 16), based on the Petition, that all the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘876 Patent are obvious in view of the combination of
`
`Gwozdz (Exhibit 1014) and Meezan’962 (Exhibit 1011) for claims 1-16 and 24-36
`
`and the combination of Gwodz, Meezan’962 and Cartt‘784 (Exhibit 1015) for
`
`claims 17-23. A POSA would be motivated to combine these references based (at
`
`least) on the POSA’s general knowledge of routine pharmaceutical and
`
`formulation chemistry (including the well-known requirements related to nasal
`
`delivery).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my ordinary and customary consulting rate for
`
`my work. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings,
`
`the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`I. BASIS FOR OPINION
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`4.
`
`In forming my opinion herein, I have relied on my own education, work
`
`experiences and knowledge, and on other bases such as textbooks, articles and
`
`other references as described herein. This declaration states my current opinions,
`
`which could change if additional information or analyses becomes available.
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed the Peppas Dec. (Exhibit 1041), and I agree with the
`
`ultimate conclusions reached by Dr. Peppas that (1) the combination of Gwozdz
`
`and Meezan’962 renders claims 1-16 and 24-36 obvious, and (2) the combination
`
`of Gwozdz, Meezan’962, and Cartt’784 renders claims 17-23, obvious.
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Professor Sveinbjörn Gizurarson,
`
`Exhibit 2012 (“Gizurarson Dec.”) and Patent Owner Response (“POR”), and I
`
`disagree with their conclusions overall and as described in detail below.
`
`7.
`
`In forming my opinion herein, I have also relied on review of the following
`
`documents:
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876, Administration Of Benzodiazepine
`
`Compositions, filed October 29, 2014 (‘876 Patent)
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`File History for ‘876 Patent, Ser. No. 14/527,613 (‘876 FH)
`
`2
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 61/040,558, filed March
`
`28, 2008 (‘558 Provisional)
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Meezan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US
`
`2006/0046962, Absorption Enhancers for Drug
`
`Administration, Serial No. 11/127,786, published March 2,
`
`2006 (Meezan‘962)
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Gwozdz et al., WO 2009/120933, Pharmaceutical Solutions
`
`And Method For Solubilizing Therapeutic Agents, published
`
`October 1, 2009, International Filing Date March 27, 2009
`
`(PCT/US2009/038518) (Gwozdz)
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`Cartt et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US
`
`2008/0279784, Nasal Administration Of Benzodiazepines,
`
`Serial No. 12/116,842, published November 13, 2008
`
`(Cartt‘784)
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`Lindhardt et al., Electroencephalographic effects and serum
`
`concentrations after intranasal and intravenous administration
`
`of diazepam to healthy volunteers, Blackwell Science Ltd Br J
`
`Clin Pharmacol, 52, 521-527, 2001 (Lindhardt)
`
`
`
`3
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1028
`
`Ivaturi et al., Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of intranasal
`
`diazepam and midazolam in healthy adult volunteers, Acta
`
`Neurol Scand. 2009 Nov;120(5):353-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
`
`0404.2009.01170.x. Epub 2009 May 14 (Ivaturi)
`
`Exhibit 1031
`
`Rowe et al., editors, Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients,
`
`Fourth Edition (2003), Monographs for “Alcohol” (i.e.,
`
`ethanol), “Alpha Tocopherol”, “Benzyl Alcohol”, “Glycerin”,
`
`“Olive Oil”, “Polyethylene Glycol”, “Propylene Glycol”,
`
`“Sesame Oil”, and “Triacetin”, American Pharmaceutical
`
`Association, Washington DC (Rowe)
`
`Exhibit 1041
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nicholas A. Peppas
`
`Exhibit 1042
`
`PDR 54th Edition 2000, DIASTAT® (diazepam rectal gel);
`
`MIACALCIN® (Calcitonin Nasal Spray); VALIUM®
`
`(diazepam injection), Physicians’ Desk Reference.
`
`Exhibit 1043
`
`Knoester PD, Jonker DM, Van Der Hoeven RT, et al.
`
`Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam
`
`administered as a concentrated intranasal spray. A study in
`
`healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002; 53: 501-507.
`
`Exhibit 1069
`
`Florida Regional Common EMS Protocols Field Guide, Jones
`
`and Barlett Publishers, MA (2005).
`
`4
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1070
`
`Gizurarson, Patent Application Publication No. US
`
`2008/0275030, Nov. 6, 2008.
`
`Exhibit 1072
`
`Nayzilam Product Label and Instructions for Use
`
`Exhibit 1074
`
`Hardman, et al, Editors, Goodman & Gilman’s, The
`
`Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 10th Edition (2001).
`
`Exhibit 1076
`
`Budavari, et al, Editors, The Merck Index, 12th Edition (1996).
`
`Exhibit 1077
`
`Ritchel, W.A., et al., Handbook of Basic Pharmocokinetics ….
`
`Including Clinical Applications, 6th Edition, 2004.
`
`Exhibit 1078
`
`USP/NF 2003, The Official Compendia of Standards, Ethanol,
`
`Copyright 2002.
`
`Exhibit 1080
`
`Valium® Tablet Label, Roche, January 2008.
`
`Exhibit 1081
`
`Drug Prices from Internet
`
`Exhibit 1082
`
`Chien, Y.W., et al., “Nasal Systemic Drug Delivery”, Chapter
`
`1, Anatomy and Physiology of the Nose, Drugs and the
`
`Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 39, Marcel Decker, 1989.
`
`Exhibit 1101
`
`Lowenstein DH, Alldredge BK. Status epilepticus. N Eng J
`
`Med 1998; 338: 970-976.
`
`Exhibit 1102
`
`Lowenstein DH, Bleck T, Macdonald RL. It’s time to revise
`
`the definition of status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1999; 40: 120-
`
`122.
`
`5
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1103.
`
`Wang HC, Chang WN, Chang HW, et al. Factors predictive of
`
`outcome in posttraumatic seizures. J Trauma 2008; 64: 883-
`
`888.
`
`Exhibit 1104
`
`Stavem K, BJornaes H, Langmoen IA. Long-term seizures and
`
`quality of life after epilepsy surgery compared with matched
`
`controls. Neurosurgery 2008; 62: 326-334.
`
`Exhibit 1105
`
`Logroscino G, Hessdorffer DC, Cascino G, et al. Time trends
`
`in incidence, mortality, and case-fatality after first episode of
`
`status epilepticus. Epilepsia 2001; 42: 1031-1035.
`
`Exhibit 1106
`
`Feen ES, Bershad EM, Suarez JI. Status Epilepticus. South
`
`Med J 2008; 101: 400-406.
`
`Exhibit 1107
`
`Pang T, Hirsch L. Treatment of convulsive and nonconvulsive
`
`status epilepticus. Cur Treat Options Neurol 2005; 7: 247-259.
`
`Exhibit 1108
`
`Smith B. Treatment of status epilepticus. Neurol Clin 2001;
`
`19: 347-369.
`
`Exhibit 1109
`
`Ericksson K, Kalviainen R. Pharmacologic management of
`
`convulsive status epilepticus in childhood. Expert Rev
`
`Neurotherapeutics 2005; 5: 777-783.
`
`6
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1110
`
`Wolfe T, Macfarlane T. Intranasal midazolam therapy for
`
`pediatric status epilepticus. Am J Emerg Med 2006; 24: 343-
`
`346.
`
`Exhibit 1111
`
`Meierkord H, Engelsen B, Gocke K, et al. EFNS guideline on
`
`the management of status epilepticus. Eur J Neurol 2006; 13:
`
`445-450.
`
`Exhibit 1112
`
`Prasad K, Krishman P, Al-Roomi K, et al., Anticonvulsant
`
`therapy for status epilepticus. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63:
`
`640-647.
`
`Exhibit 1113
`
`Illum L. Nasal Clearance in Health and Disease. J Aerosol
`
`Med 2006; 19: 92-99.
`
`Exhibit 1114
`
`Merkus P, Ebbens FA, Muller B, Fokkens WJ. Influence of
`
`anatomy and head position on intranasal drug deposition. Eur
`
`Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 263: 827-832.
`
`Exhibit 1115
`
`Illum L. Transport of drugs from the nasal cavity to the
`
`central nervous system. Eur J Pharm Sci 2000; 11: 1-18.
`
`Exhibit 1116
`
`Illum L. Is nose to brain transport of drugs a reality?. JPP
`
`2004; 56: 3-17.
`
`7
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1117
`
`Merkus F, van den Berg MP. Can nasal drug delivery bypass
`
`the blood-brain barrier? Questioning the direct transport
`
`theory. Drugs 2007; 8: 133-144.
`
`Exhibit 1118
`
`Constantino HR, Illum L, Brandt G, et al. Intl J Pharmaceutics
`
`2007; 337: 1-24.
`
`Exhibit 1119
`
`Davis GA, Rudy AC, Archer SA, Wermeling DP, McNamara
`
`PJ. Effect of fluticasone propionate nasal spray on
`
`bioavailability of hydromorphone hydrochloride in patients
`
`with allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy 2004; 24: 26-32.
`
`Exhibit 1120
`
`Davis GA, Rudy AC, Archer SM, Wermeling DP, McNamara
`
`PJ. Bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of intranasal
`
`hydromorphone in patients experiencing vasomotor rhinitis.
`
`Clin Drug Invest 2004; 24: 1-7.
`
`Exhibit 1121
`
`Holsti M, Sill B, Firth S, et al., Prehospital intranasal
`
`midazolam for the treatment of pediatric seizures. Ped Emerg
`
`Care 2007; 23: 148-153.
`
`Exhibit 1122
`
`Rudy AC, Coda BA, Archer SM, Wermeling DP. A multiple
`
`dose phase 1 study of intranasal hydromorphone
`
`hydrochloride in healthy volunteers. Anesth Analg 2004; 99:
`
`1379-1386.
`
`8
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1125
`
`Loftsson T, Gudmundsdottir H, Sigurjonsdottir JF, et al.
`
`Cyclodextrin solubilization of benzodiazepines: formulation of
`
`midazolam nasal spray. Int J Pharm 2001; 212: 29-40.
`
`Exhibit 1127
`
`Gudmundsdottir H, Sigurjonsdottir JF, Masson M, et al.
`
`Intranasal administration of midazolam in a cyclodextrin
`
`based formulation: bioavailability and clinical evaluation in
`
`humans. Pharmazie 2001; 56: 963-966.
`
`Exhibit 1128
`
`Dale O., Nilsen T., Loftsson T. Intranasal midazolam: a
`
`comparison of two delivery devices in human volunteers. J
`
`Pharmacy Pharmacol 2006; 58: 1311-1318.
`
`Exhibit 1129
`
`Burstein AH, Modica R, Hatton M, et al. Pharmacokinetics
`
`and pharmacodynamics of midazolam after intranasal
`
`administration. J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 37: 711-718.
`
`Exhibit 1130
`
`Wermeling, D, Record K, Kelly T, et al., Pharmacokinetics
`
`and pharamcodynamics of a new intranasal midazolam
`
`formulation in healthy volunteers. Anesth Analg 2006; 103:
`
`344-349.
`
`Exhibit 1131
`
`Schols-Hendriks MWG, Lohman JJHM, Janknegt R, et al.
`
`Absorption of clonazepam after intranasal and buccal
`
`administration. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 1995; 39: 449-451.
`
`9
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1133
`
`Lau SWJ, Slattery JT. Intl J Pharmaceutics. Absorption of
`
`diazepam and lorazepam following intranasal administration.
`
`Int J Pharmaceutics 1989; 54: 171-174.
`
`Exhibit 1134
`
`Wermeling DP, Miller JL, Archer SM, et al. Bioavailability
`
`and pharmacokinetics of lorazepam after intranasal,
`
`intravenous, and intramuscular administration. J Clin
`
`Pharmacol, 2001; 41: 1225-1231.
`
`Exhibit 1135
`
`Greenblatt D, Gan L, Harmatz, et al. Pharmacokinetics and
`
`pharmacodynamics of single-dose triazolam: EEG compared
`
`with digital symbol substitution test. Br J Clin Pharmacol
`
`2005; 60: 244-248.
`
`Exhibit 1136
`
`O’Regan M, Brown J, Clarke M. Nasal rather than rectal
`
`benzodiazepines in the management of acute childhood
`
`seizures. Develop Med and Child Neurol 1996; 38: 1037-
`
`1045.
`
`Exhibit 1137
`
`Mittal P, Manohar R, Rawat A. Comparative study of
`
`intranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam sedation for
`
`procedures and seizures. Ind J Pediatrics 2006;73: 975-978.
`
`10
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1138
`
`Mahmoudian T, Zadeh M. Comparison of intranasal
`
`midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating acute
`
`seizures in children. Epilepsy and Behavior 2004; 5: 253-255.
`
`Exhibit 1139
`
`Lahat E, Goldman M, Barr J, et al. Comparison of intranasal
`
`midazolam with intravenous diazepam in treating febrile
`
`seizures in children: prospective randomized study. BMJ
`
`2000; 321: 83-87.
`
`Exhibit 1140
`
`Bhattacharyya M, Kalra V, Gulati S. Intranasal midazolam vs
`
`rectal diazepam in acute childhood seizures. Pediatric
`
`Neurology 2006; 34: 355-359.
`
`Exhibit 1141
`
`Wilson, M.T., S. Macleod, and M.E. O'Regan, Nasal/buccal
`
`midazolam use in the community. Arch Dis Child, 2004. 89(1):
`
`p. 50-1.
`
`Exhibit 1142
`
`Harbord, M.G., et al., Use of intranasal midazolam to treat
`
`acute seizures in paediatric community settings. J Paediatr
`
`Child Health, 2004. 40(9-10): p. 556-8.
`
`Exhibit 1143
`
`Jeannet, P.Y., et al., Home and hospital treatment of acute
`
`seizures in children with nasal midazolam. Eur J Paediatr
`
`Neurol, 1999. 3(2): p. 73-7.
`
`11
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1144
`
`Ahmad S, Ellis J, Kamwendo H, et al. Efficacy and safety of
`
`intranasal lorazepam versus intramuscular paraldehyde for
`
`protracted convulsions in children: an open label trial. Lancet
`
`2006; 367: 1591-1597.
`
`Exhibit 1145
`
`Wolfe T, Bernstone T, Intranasal Drug Delivery: An
`
`Alternative to Intravenous Administration in Selected
`
`Emergency Cases, J Emerg Nurs. 2004 Apr;30(2):141-7.
`
`Exhibit 1146
`
`FDA GUI FINAL, Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA
`
`or a 505(b)(2) Application, Published May 2019,
`
`https://www.fda.gov/media/123567/download
`
`Exhibit 1147
`
`CDER 2019-09-19-Abbreviated Approval Products:
`
`
`
`505(b)(2) or ANDA? https://www.fda.gov/drugs/cder-small-
`
`business-industry-assistance-sbia/abbreviated-approval-
`
`pathways-drug-product-505b2-or-anda-september-19-2019-
`
`issue
`
`Exhibit 1148
`
`FDA GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY (1999), Applications
`
`Covered by Section 505(b)(2),
`
`https://www.fda.gov/media/72419/download
`
`Exhibit 1149
`
`Transcript of the January 14, 2020 deposition of Dr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gizararson,
`
`12
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Exhibit 1151
`
`Wermeling, D.P., Intranasal delivery of antiepileptic
`
`medications for treatment of seizures, Neurotherapeutics,
`
`April 2009, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 352–358
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`SIGMA Chemical Company Catalog (1988)
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sveinbjorn Gizurarson, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`D. Wermeling, U.S. Patent No. 6,610,271, issued August 26,
`
`2003.
`
`
`
`PAPER NO.
`
`PAPER DESCRIPTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition
`
`PTAB Decision to Institute the IPR
`
`II. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`I provide my opinions in this declaration as informed below.
`
`I have been informed that to be entitled to an earlier priority date each claim
`
`limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally
`
`filed disclosure, in this case Provisional Application Serial No. 61/040,558, Exhibit
`
`1008 (“the ‘558 Provisional application”).
`
`13
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is interpreted by giving its terms the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that to benefit from a claim of priority to an originally
`
`filed disclosure, the originally filed disclosure must contain a written description of
`
`the invention as claimed in the later applications, and of the manner and process of
`
`making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention as claimed. I have
`
`been informed that to meet this requirement, the originally filed disclosure must
`
`reasonably convey to one of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the later-
`
`claimed subject matter at the time the parent application was filed. I have been
`
`further informed, a disclosure in a parent application (the originally filed
`
`disclosure) that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient
`
`to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure itself must describe the
`
`claimed invention with all its limitations.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed that for a disclosure to be enabling it must teach those
`
`in the art enough that they can make and use the invention without “undue
`
`experimentation” and that in determining whether a disclosure is enabling I should
`
`consider: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (2) the amount of direction
`
`or guidance disclosed in the disclosure; (3) the presence or absence of working
`
`14
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`examples in the disclosure; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior
`
`art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability of the art; and (8)
`
`the breadth of the claims. I was informed that these are called the Wands’ factors
`
`and that only those factors relevant to the claim scope need be considered.
`
`13.
`
`I have been further informed that in order to determine if the later
`
`application (i.e., the ‘876 Patent, Ex. 1001) is to receive the benefit of an earlier
`
`filed application or patent (i.e., the ‘558 Provisional, Ex. 1008), the question is
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant
`
`possessed what is claimed in the later filed application (i.e., the ‘876 Patent, Ex.
`
`1001) as of the filing date of the earlier filed application or patent (i.e., the ‘558
`
`Provisional, Ex. 1008). The disclosure as originally filed in the earlier applications
`
`or patent (i.e., ‘558 Provisional, Ex. 1008) must convey with reasonable clarity to
`
`those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention. That is,
`
`one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the
`
`limitation at issue in the claims.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that these requirements for written support, possession
`
`of the invention and enablement, are referred to as § 112(a) requirements. I have
`
`further been informed that if a patent’s claims do not have § 112(a) support, it is
`
`unpatentable and invalid.
`
`15
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. I
`
`have also been informed that an obviousness analysis takes into account factual
`
`inquiries including the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`subject matter, as well as secondary considerations such as commercial success,
`
`long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others and unexpected results.
`
`16.
`
`I have also been informed that objective evidence or “secondary
`
`considerations,” such as unexpected results, commercial success, long felt need,
`
`failure of others, copying by others, licensing, and skepticism of experts can be
`
`relevant to the issue of obviousness. However, where the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are “minor,” objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness may not be sufficiently compelling to support the patentability of a
`
`claim. I have also been informed that to be considered the secondary
`
`considerations must have a nexus to claims.
`
`17.
`
`I have also been informed that in order for the results to be unexpected the
`
`claimed invention must exhibit some superior property or advantage that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or unexpected and
`
`16
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, the patent owner must
`
`compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to
`
`show the criticality of the claimed range.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that there are several accepted rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of the claimed
`
`subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following: combining prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results;
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the art”, a POSA, is
`
`not a specific, real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual or team of
`
`individuals working closely together, who is presumed to have known the relevant
`
`art at the time of the invention. In defining the POSA, I have been informed to
`
`consider factors such as the educational level and years of experience not only of
`
`17
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`the person or persons who have developed the invention that is the subject of the
`
`case, but also others working in the pertinent art at the time of the invention; the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and
`
`publications of other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the
`
`technology.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`POSA
`
`20. Patent Owner and Dr. Gizurarson take issue with Petitioner’s description of
`
`a POSA. See POR, Paper 16, p. 15-17; and Gizurarson Dec. ¶¶ 25-33, Exhibit
`
`2012.
`
`21. Petitioner’s definition (which was objected to by Patent Owner), see
`
`Petition, Paper 3, p. 4, reads as follows:
`
`“As of the earliest priority date that the Challenged Claims of ‘876
`
`Patent are entitled to, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`would have been a medicinal chemist, pharmaceutical chemist,
`
`chemist, or biologist involved in the research and development of
`
`pharmaceutical formulations and/or delivery. The POSA would have at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in chemical, biological, or pharmaceutical
`
`sciences or a medical degree, and several years of experience in the
`
`field of transmucosal (including intranasal, rectal, vaginal, ocular,
`
`lacrimal, nasolacrimal, buccal, sublingual, urethral, inhalation, and
`
`auricular) pharmaceutical formulation development and/or delivery,
`
`the amount of post-graduate experience depending upon the level of
`
`18
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`formal education. The individual would also have some experience in
`
`design and testing of formulations for mucosal delivery (and
`
`particularly in intranasal formulations) of systemic-acting drugs.”
`
`
`
`22.
`
`It is my opinion that at least the following of Dr. Gizurarson’s statements in
`
`his declaration (Exhibit 2012) regarding the definition of a POSA must be
`
`corrected:
`
`(a) in response to Gizurarson Dec. ¶ 31, it is necessary to add “transmembrane”
`
`to “intranasal” because all the other routes listed in (b) below are
`
`transmembrane;
`
`(b) in response to Gizurarson Dec. ¶ 32, I agree that experience formulating
`
`“rectal, vaginal, ocular, lacrimal, nasolacrimal, buccal, sublingual, urethral,
`
`inhalation, and auricular” formulations can be very “informative”. In fact,
`
`such experience can be very useful to formulating intranasal products, and
`
`further the use of rectal formulations of diazepam (a commercially available
`
`product) for intranasal administration would give POSA clues and direction
`
`as to what could and should work in intranasal formulations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1150
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`1. Ethanol Versus Dehydrated Ethanol
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked to consider what a POSA would understand the terms
`
`“ethanol” and “dehydrated ethanol” to mean. A POSA would understand that the
`
`ordinary meaning of the terms “ethanol” and “dehydrated ethanol” would be the
`
`meanings given in the U.S. Pharmacopeia (“USP”). See Ex. 1078, pp. 0004-0005.
`
`24. Thus, a POSA would understand that ethanol “contains not less than 92.3%
`
`and not more than 93.8%, by weight, corresponding to not less than 94.9% and not
`
`more than 96.0%, by volume, at 15.56o, of C2H5OH.” Id. A POSA would
`
`understand the remaining 4-5% (by volume) to be mostly – if not all – water.
`
`25. Thus, a POSA would understand that dehydrated ethanol “contains not less
`
`than 99.2 percent, by weight, corre