`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`Issued: June 14, 2016
`
`Named Inventor: Edward Yaworski, Kieu Lam,
`Lorne Palmer, Ian MacLachlan
`
`Title: Lipid Formulations for Nucleic Acid Delivery
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW S. JANOFF, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, INC.’S
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,364,435
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 1
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`ARBUTUS - EXHIBIT 2028
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .................................................................. 1
`II.
`III. QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE .............................................. 3
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 7
`V.
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES............................................................................ 8
`A.
`Claim Construction ...................................................................... 8
`B.
`Prior Art...................................................................................... 10
`C. Anticipation ................................................................................ 10
`D. Obviousness ............................................................................... 11
`VI. BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 15
`A.
`Lipid carrier particles for nucleic acid payloads ........................ 15
`B.
`The ’435 patent disclosure ......................................................... 21
`C.
`Claim construction ..................................................................... 28
`D.
`Prior art ....................................................................................... 28
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ............................... 35
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious in view of the Patent
`Owner’s Prior Disclosures ......................................................... 35
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious in view of the ’196
`PCT in light of Lin and/or Ahmad ............................................. 50
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1-20 are anticipated by or obvious in
`view of the ’554 publication ...................................................... 53
`VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 2
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Andrew S. Janoff, PhD, declare as follows:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Andrew S. Janoff. I am a consultant in biotechnology
`
`and drug delivery, primarily focusing on lipid and liposome technology.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. (“Moderna”)
`
`as an expert in connection with matters raised in the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435 (the “’435 patent”) owned by
`
`Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to
`
`me. To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the
`
`right to continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of
`
`documents and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from
`
`depositions that have not yet been taken.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`4.
`The ’435 patent is entitled “Lipid Formulations for Nucleic Acid
`
`Delivery.” Ex. 1001. The ’435 patent is directed to a composition of nucleic
`
`acid-lipid particles (e.g., particles that can be used to deliver therapeutic
`
`nucleic acid payloads to a patient) comprising three lipid components (i.e.,
`
`cationic lipid, non-cationic lipid and conjugated lipid), each of which fall
`
`within a claimed proportion with regard to the total lipid in the particles. See,
`
`e.g., id., cl. 1. The Petition challenges claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 3
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenges claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent as
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Patent Owner’s prior disclosures in
`
`PCT/CA2004/001051, Publication No. WO2005007196 A2 (“’196 PCT”), Ex.
`
`1002, or U.S. Publication No. US2006/0134189 (“’189 publication”), Ex.
`
`1003. Based on studying the petition and the exhibits cited in the petition as
`
`well as other documents, it is my opinion that claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent
`
`are obvious in view of the ’196 PCT or ’189 publication.
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 2 challenges claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent as
`
`obvious in view of the Patent Owner’s prior disclosures in light of Lin (Ex.
`
`1005) and/or Ahmad (Ex. 1006) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Based on studying the
`
`petition and the exhibits cited in the Petition as well as other documents, it is
`
`my opinion that claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent are obvious in view of the
`
`Patent Owner’s prior disclosures in light of Lin and/or Ahmad.
`
`7.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 3 challenges claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent as
`
`anticipated by the disclosures in U.S. Publication No. US2006/0240554 (“’554
`
`publication”), Ex. 1004, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the
`
`alternative, as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the ’554 publication.
`
`Based on studying the petition and the exhibits cited in the petition as well as
`
`other documents, it is my opinion that claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent are
`
`anticipated by the ’554 publication. In the alternative, it is my opinion that
`
`claims 1-20 of the ’435 patent are obvious in view of the ’554 publication.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 4
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`III. QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE
`8.
`I am formally trained as a membrane biophysicist. I obtained my
`
`Ph.D. degree in Biophysics from Michigan State University in 1980. Before
`
`that, I received my MS in Biophysics from Michigan State University in 1977,
`
`and my BS in Biology from The American University in 1971. I received
`
`postdoctoral training in Pharmacology at the Harvard Medical School and in
`
`Anesthesia at the Massachusetts General Hospital.
`
`9.
`
`I have played leadership roles in the discipline of pharmaceutical
`
`liposomology from its inception in 1981.
`
`10. After my post-doctoral work, I was recruited from Harvard by the
`
`industrialist, Jack Whitehead, and became the first senior founding scientist at
`
`the Liposome Company, Inc. I eventually became the Vice President of
`
`Research and Development at the Liposome Company. I led the team at the
`
`Liposome Company that discovered, formulated, and developed ABELCET, a
`
`novel lipid structure that is approved worldwide for systemic fungal infections.
`
`I first published the physical chemical characterization of this structure, along
`
`with an explanation of why it would yield a less toxic alternative to the
`
`traditional micelle formulation in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
`
`Sciences.
`
`11.
`
`I led the team at the Liposome Company that developed Staclot
`
`LA, a diagnostic reagent comprised of Hexagonal (II) lipid that is a standard
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 5
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`practice for diagnosing lupus anticoagulant. The work leading to this product
`
`was also published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
`
`12.
`
`In addition I lead teams at the Liposome Company that formulated
`
`and characterized Myocet (Liposomal Doxorubicn Injection). This product is
`
`currently approved in Canada and the European Union and is used to treat
`
`metastatic breast cancer.
`
`13. From 2001-2002, I was Chairman, and from 2002-2005, I was
`
`Chairman and CEO, of Celator Technologies, Inc. I was involved in the
`
`creation of Celator’s intellectual property platform and built the company from
`
`a Canadian start up into an international pharmaceutical corporation with
`
`research, manufacturing, clinical development, regulatory, commercial, and
`
`legal functions. From 2005-2008, I was Chairman and CEO of its successor,
`
`Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a company using controlled-release liposomes to
`
`deliver combinations of chemotherapeutic agents to tumors. Celator’s drug
`
`Vxyeos was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of leukemia.
`
`14. From 2009-2011, I was CEO of TranslationUP, which was a
`
`consortium of authorities from academic research, drug development, policy,
`
`finance, public relations, and law seeking to create a new model to more
`
`effectively advance government funded late-stage discovery concepts into
`
`clinical development.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 6
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`In my career, I have overseen the filing of eight INDs, two NDAs
`
`and one MAA in the areas of oncology, antiinfectives, and acute respiratory
`
`distress syndrome, all involving liposome or lipid-delivery systems.
`
`16.
`
`I have worked and published in the area of pulmonary surfactants
`
`involving treatment modalities in which lamellar lipid for instilling into
`
`neonate lungs was constructed to rearrange into the Hexagonal II architecture
`
`at body temperature. An article that I published on this topic in Science was
`
`reviewed and highlighted in Lancet, a leading British Medical Journal.
`
`17.
`
`I have lectured and have conducted Grand Rounds in the areas of
`
`liposomes, lipid physical chemistry and drug delivery at many prestigious
`
`medical centers in the United States and Canada, and have been invited to
`
`speak on these topics at major industry, financial, scientific and medical
`
`symposia worldwide.
`
`18.
`
`I have also served on various government advisory committees.
`
`For example, I taught at the NATO Advanced Study Institute in Cape Sunion,
`
`Greece, participated in FDA symposia regarding the quality and performance
`
`of controlled release parenterals, served on the Committee of Science and the
`
`Arts at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, and was a founding member on
`
`the Scientific Advisory Board at Rider University. I have also advised the
`
`Centre for Drug Research and Development in Vancouver, Canada on
`
`liposomal delivery systems.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 7
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I have served as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of
`
`Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology at Thomas Jefferson University Medical
`
`School. I have also been a visiting Research Scholar at Princeton University
`
`and have held appointments in the Departments of Physics, Molecular Biology,
`
`and Chemical Engineering.
`
`20.
`
`I am the Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the Journal of Liposome
`
`Research. I served on the editorial board of this Journal from 1994-1997, and
`
`was the Editor-in-Chief from 1997-2008.
`
`21.
`
`I am an editor of Liposomes: Rational Design (Marcel Dekker,
`
`New York, 1999), a volume of expert reviews in the field of liposomology.
`
`22.
`
`I hold over 75 U.S. patents in lipid nanotechnology and drug
`
`delivery, and I have authored more than 90 scientific articles and reviews
`
`principally related to nanotechnology, lipid supramolecular structure,
`
`liposomes, and drug delivery including fusogenic liposomes and triggerable
`
`lipid assemblies.
`
`23. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1018.
`
`24.
`
`I am being compensated by Moderna for my time spent in
`
`developing this declaration at a rate of $750 per hour, and for any time spent
`
`testifying in connection with this declaration at a rate of $750 per hour. My
`
`compensation is not contingent upon the substance of my opinion, the content
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 8
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`of this declaration or any testimony I may provide, or the outcome of the inter
`
`partes review or any other proceeding.
`
`25.
`
`I have no financial interest in Moderna.
`
`26. My opinion expressed in this declaration are based on the Petition
`
`and exhibits cited in the Petition, and other documents and materials identified
`
`in this declaration, including the ’435 patent (Ex. 1001) and its prosecution
`
`history (Ex. 1016), the prior art references and materials discussed in this
`
`declaration, and any other references specifically identified in this declaration.
`
`27.
`
`I am aware of information generally available to, and relied upon
`
`by, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant times, including technical
`
`dictionaries and technical reference materials (including, for example,
`
`textbooks, manuals, technical papers, articles, and relevant technical
`
`standards).
`
`28.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions to address any
`
`information obtained, or positions taken, based on any new information that
`
`comes to light throughout this proceeding.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`29.
`It is my understanding that the ’435 patent should be interpreted
`
`based on how it would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the application. It is my understanding that
`
`factors such as the education level of those working in the field, the
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 9
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`sophistication of the technology, the type of problems encountered in the art,
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems, and the speed at which innovations
`
`are made may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`30.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue and the state of the art at
`
`the earliest priority date of the ’435 patent.
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion, based upon a review of the ’435 patent, its file
`
`history, and my knowledge of the field of the art, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) for the field of the ’435 patent would have specific
`
`experience with lipid particle formation and use in the context of delivering
`
`therapeutic payloads, and would have a Ph.D., an M.D., or a similar advanced
`
`degree in an allied field (e.g., biophysics, microbiology, biochemistry) or an
`
`equivalent combination of education and experience. This level of skill is
`
`representative of the inventors on the ’435 patent and authors/inventors of prior
`
`art cited herein. See Exs. 1001-1006.
`
`32.
`
`I have considered the issues discussed in the remainder of this
`
`declaration from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Although I used this perspective, I do not believe that any of my opinions
`
`would change if a slightly higher or lower level of skill were adopted.
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 10
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I am not a patent attorney and my opinions are limited to what I
`
`believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, based on
`
`the patent documents. I use the principles below, however, as a guide in
`
`formulating my opinions.
`
`34. My understanding is that a primary step in determining validity of
`
`patent claims is to properly construe the claims to determine claim scope and
`
`meaning.
`
`35.
`
`In an inter partes review proceeding, as I understand from
`
`Moderna counsel, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the patent’s specification. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). In other forums, such as in federal courts, different standards of
`
`proof and claim interpretation are operative, which are not applied by the
`
`patent office for inter partes review. Accordingly, I reserve the right to argue
`
`for a different interpretation or construction of the challenged claims in other
`
`proceedings, as appropriate.
`
`36.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim
`
`is anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the patent office must
`
`construe the claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable construction
`
`with the specification. For the purposes of this review, I have construed each
`
`claim term in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the
`
`required broadest reasonable construction.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 11
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`37.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim. I understand that a
`
`U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an asserted patent if the date of
`
`issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the asserted patent. I further
`
`understand that a printed publication, such as an article published in a
`
`magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to an asserted patent if the
`
`date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent also qualifies as prior art
`
`to an asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year
`
`before the filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed
`
`publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade publication,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than
`
`one year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the asserted
`
`patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United Stated before the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art
`
`can be used to invalidate a patent claim via anticipation or obviousness.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 12
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Anticipation
`41.
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art
`
`on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted
`
`claim, and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are
`
`disclosed in that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e.,
`
`necessarily present).
`
`43.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`D. Obviousness
`44.
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still
`
`invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention was made provides a reference point from which the prior art and
`
`claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point prevents one from
`
`using his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is
`
`obvious.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 13
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary
`
`considerations such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs,
`
`failure of others, etc.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to
`
`combine, but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is
`
`simple common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis
`
`recognizes that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives
`
`innovation, and that a motivation to combine references may be supplied by the
`
`direction of the marketplace.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
`
`its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`49.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 14
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able to
`
`fit together the teachings of multiple publications. I understand that
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example,
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are
`
`a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
`
`grasp. The result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and common sense.
`
`51. The combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives
`
`and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`
`different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`
`predictable variation, the patent claim is likely obvious.
`
`52.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 15
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`addressed by the patent that was known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
`
`claimed.
`
`53.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim
`
`that are not found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by
`
`the common sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that the disclosure of overlapping ranges in the prior
`
`art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C § 103, but that
`
`a petitioner still has the burden of demonstrating invalidity by the
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may
`
`include (1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the
`
`invention of the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the
`
`patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by
`
`others; (6) deliberate copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a
`
`solution to the long felt need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`56.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any
`
`such secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 16
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary
`
`consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`57.
`
`I understand that unexpected results can support a non-
`
`obviousness determination but must show unexpected results for the entire
`
`claimed range. This can be done by demonstrating that an embodiment has an
`
`unexpected result and providing an adequate basis to support the conclusion
`
`that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same
`
`manner.
`
`58.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding
`
`and knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem
`
`facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements
`
`recited in the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves,
`
`or any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the
`
`invention, can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior
`
`art references in the claimed manner.
`
`59.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 17
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. BACKGROUND
`Lipid carrier particles for nucleic acid payloads
`60. Gene therapy—addressing disease at the level of the genetic
`
`A.
`
`cause, typically with nucleic acids—is an area of intensive medical research.
`
`Therapeutic nucleic acids can be used for both gene delivery (e.g., mRNA) and
`
`gene silencing (e.g., small interfering RNA (“siRNA”)). See Ex. 1008 (Gao),
`
`E92; Ex. 1005 (Lin), 3307. Long before the ’435 patent, it was known that
`
`systems comprised of combinations of different types of lipids with nucleic
`
`acids could result in lipid-nucleic acid particles, an accepted delivery strategy
`
`for nucleic acid therapeutics. See Ex. 1008 (Gao), E95.
`
`61. The ’435 patent refers to such nucleic acid-lipid carrier particles
`
`as “stable nucleic acid-lipid particles” or “SNALPs.” Ex. 1001, 5:62-6:2. The
`
`’435 patent discloses three lipid components: a “cationic lipid,” a “non-
`
`cationic lipid,” and a “conjugated lipid.” Id., cl. 1 (components). These lipid
`
`components were known to be basic building blocks of nucleic acid-lipid
`
`particles long before the ’435 patent. See Ex. 1006 (Ahmad), 740, 746
`
`(“[cationic lipids] for transfection typically consist of a mixture of cationic and
`
`neutral (helper) lipid” and “strategies for optimization … could involve
`
`introducing PEG-lipids … to block … unspecific interactions”); Ex. 1008
`
`(Gao), E95 (cationic lipid carrier particles “are often formulated with a
`
`noncharged phospholipid or cholesterol as a helper lipid … PEG-lipid
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 18
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`conjugates have been incorporated … to minimize interaction with blood
`
`components ….”).
`
`62. Cationic lipids have been used in the construction of nucleic acid-
`
`lipid particles because they interact with the negative charges on nucleic acid
`
`payloads facilitating the formation of such particles. See Ex. 1008 (Gao), E95.
`
`Effective delivery of the nucleic acid (called the “transfection efficiency”) is
`
`thought to require fusion between the particle [lipoplex] and a cell membrane.
`
`See Ex. 1009 (Bennett), 48; Ex. 1008 (Gao), E95. Since cationic lipids can
`
`also interact with negative charges on cell membranes, this has been believed
`
`to promote, in some cases, the fusion event necessary for the effective delivery
`
`of the nucleic acid. See Ex. 1006 (Ahmad), 745 (“[A]n overall positive
`
`[cationic lipid]-DNA charge is required to promote initial electrostatic
`
`interactions with cell membranes.”).
`
`63. Moreover, it was known that non-cationic “helper” lipids, e.g.,
`
`certain phospholipids and/or cholesterols, could be combined with the cationic
`
`lipid to influence the ability of the particles to transfect cells. See Ex. 1008
`
`(Gao), E95 (cationic lipids “are often formulated with a noncharged
`
`phospholipid or cholesterol as a helper lipid to form liposomes”); Ex. 1009
`
`(Bennett), 47 (helper lipids used).
`
`64. A “conjugated lipid” (e.g., a PEG-lipid) can be added to increase
`
`in vivo circulation time by providing a neutral, hydrophilic coating to the
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 19
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`particle’s exterior. See Ex. 1008 (Gao), E97 (“PEG-lipid conjugates have been
`
`incorporated into the lipoplexes to minimize the nonspecific interaction of
`
`lipoplexes with blood components.”); Ex. 1010 (Heyes), 277 (“PEG-lipids both
`
`stabilize the particle during the formulation process and shield the cationic bi-
`
`layer, preventing rapid systemic clearance.”).
`
`65.
`
`“The structure of lipoplexes [was known to be] influenced by
`
`multiple factors, including the charge ratio, the concentration of individual
`
`lipids and DNA, the structure of the cationic lipid and the helper lipid, [and]
`
`the physical aggregation state of the lipids ([e.g.,] multilamellar or unilamellar
`
`liposomes, or micelles) ….” Ex. 1008 (Gao), E95. Transfection efficacy is
`
`complex because “[a] large number of parameters [are] involved.” Ex. 1006
`
`(Ahmad), 740. Different transfection mechanisms “may be facilitated by
`
`alterations in liposome formulation….” Ex. 1009 (Bennet), 48.
`
`66. The claims of the ’435 patent are not limited to a specific
`
`combination of lipids and encompass broad ranges of lipids that have
`
`dramatically varying structures likely resulting in drastically different
`
`activities. Effective proportions of lipid components for one set of lipid
`
`species may not be effective for an alternative lipid species.
`
`67. For example, it was well-established at the time of the ’435 patent
`
`that “[t]he chemical structure of the cationic lipid ha[d] a major impact on the
`
`transfection efficiency.” Ex. 1008 (Gao), E95. Indeed references incorporated
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 20
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`into the ’435 patent acknowledge that “alternative cationic lipids” to the one
`
`tested would have “different [transfection] efficiencies.” See Ex. 1011 (’613
`
`patent), 1:26-28 (“[A]lternative cationic lipids … work in essentially the same
`
`manner but with different efficiencies.”).
`
`68. Cationic lipid variables impacting transfection efficiency included
`
`“the chemical structure of the cationic lipid [and] … the charge ratio between
`
`the cationic lipid and the DNA ….” Ex. 1008 (Gao), E95. These variables
`
`could impact the proportion of cationic lipid that is most effective for a given
`
`lipid component combination.
`
`69. Hundreds of cationic lipids, both univalent and multivalent, were
`
`known at the time of the ’435 patent, some with differing charges. Id., E95
`
`(“[H]undreds of new cationic lipids have been developed … [that] differ by the
`
`number of charges in their hydrophilic head group and by the detailed structure
`
`of their hydrophobic moiety.”). Thus the charge density on the surface of a
`
`nucleic acid-lipid particle, at a fixed cationic lipid proportion, can be
`
`modulated by introducing cationic lipids of different valancies (i.e., using
`
`cationic lipids with different charges). This would have been expected to
`
`impact the ability of the particle to promote fusion events with target cell
`
`membranes. See Ex. 1006 (Ahmad), 740. Both Ahmad and Lin identified
`
`charge density as an important determinate of transfection efficacy in the
`
`systems studied. Id., 744; Ex. 1005 (Lin), 3312.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Moderna Ex 1007-p. 21
`Moderna v Protiva
`
`
`
`
`
`70.
`
`It was also well-known at the time of the ’435 patent that certain
`
`lipid component combinations favor having a 50% or greater proportion of
`
`cationic lipid. First, early researchers often chose a 50% proportion of cationic
`
`lipid as a default in evaluating particle transfection efficiency. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1009 (Bennett), 49 (50% cationic lipid); Ex. 1012 (U.S. Patent 7,939,505)
`
`(“’505 patent”), 44:61-65 (cationic lipid of “about 0.5% to about 70% (mol %)
`
`of the total amount of lipid”), 96:40-67 (Example 32 and Table 12)
`
`(formulations with 50% cationic lipid), 99:34-101:45 (Examples 34-35 and
`
`Tables 15-18) (same). Second, Researchers determined that, in some cases,
`
`increasing the cationic lipid proportion above 50% increased transfection
`
`efficiency. Ex. 1006 (Ahmad), 744; Ex. 1005 (Lin), 3312.
`
`71. At the time of the ’435 patent the number of species of non-
`
`cationic lipids that could be employed was large, and differences among such
`
`lipids had been reported to impact the structure and perhaps the function of the
`
`resulting nucleic acid-lipid particles. Ex. 1008 (Gao),