`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`CASE IPR2020-00193
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,138,456 B2
`
`____________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)…………………….............1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))…………...............1
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))…………………….……...1
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))………….…….2
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))………………....…….2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))………….…...…..3
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES…………………….……...........3
`
`BACKGROUND….………………………….…………………………..…4
`
`A.
`
`Technology….………………………….…………………………….4
`
`B.
`
`The ‘456 Patent……….….………………………….……………….7
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART……………………….10
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION...….…………………………………………11
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, and 7-11 are obvious under
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the Cubicin® label in
`
`
`view of Neururkar, Mittal, or Sawai…….……..….………………..12
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW EACH CHALLENGED
`
`CLAIM OF THE ’456 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE……...………..12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1……………………………………………….……....12
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2……………………………………………….……....27
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Claim 7..……………………………………………….……..32
`
`4.
`
`Claim 8…..…………………………………………….……..37
`
`5.
`
`Claim 9..……………………………………………….……..39
`
`6.
`
`Claim 10……………………………………………….……..42
`
`7.
`
`Claim 11……………………………………………….……..44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED……..………………………...60
`
`B. Challenge #3: Claims 1, 2, and 7-11 are obvious under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Inman in view of
`
`Neururkar, Sawai, or Mittal…………………………….…..……...45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1……………………………………………….……....45
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2……………………………………………….……....49
`
`3.
`
`Claim 7……………………………………………….……....51
`
`4.
`
`Claim 8……………………………………………….……....54
`
`5.
`
`Claim 9……………………………………………….……....55
`
`6.
`
`Claim 10……………………………………………….……..57
`
`7.
`
`Claim 11……………………………………………….……..59
`
`X. CONCLUSION………………………………………..…………………..61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Ex. 1001 United States Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution history of United States Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Raj Suryanarayanan
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 386 951 A2
`(“Inman”)
`
`
`Ex. 1004 Cubicin® label (downloaded on December 7, 2018 from
`
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2003/21-
`
`572_Cubicin_Prntlbl.pdf)
`
`Ex. 1005 United States Patent No. 6,136,783 (“Neururkar”)
`
`Ex. 1006 United States Patent No. 7,112,565 B2 (“Sawai”)
`
`Ex. 1007 United States Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0137197 A1
`(“Mittal”)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`Ex. 1009 United States Patent No. 8,835,382 B2
`
`Ex. 1010 Caspofungin® label (downloaded on December 12, 2018 from
`
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/21227s01
`
`5lbl.pdf)
`
`Ex. 1011 Carpenter, J.F., et al., “Rational Design of Stable Lyophilized Protein
`Formulations: Some Practical Advice,” Pharmaceutical Research,
`
`
`vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 969-976 (1997).
`
`Ex. 1012 Diven, D.G., et al., “Extending Shelf Like Just Makes Sense,” Mayo
`
`Clin. Proc., vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 1471-1474 (2015).
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP 2 918 324 A1.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`Physicians’ Desk Reference, 60th ed., pp. 1038-1042 (2006).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015 European Medicines Agency, Caspofungin Accord: European Public
`
`Assessment Report (2015) (downloaded on July 25, 2019 from
`
`https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-
`
`
`
`report/caspofungin-accord-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf)
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`European Medicines Agency, Cubicin: European Public Assessment
`Report – Scientific Discussion (2006) (downloaded on July 25, 2019
`from https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-
`
`discussion/cubicin-epar-scientific-discussion_en.pdf).
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for Inter
`
`Partes Review of claims 1, 2, and 7-11 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,138,456 B2 (“the ‘456 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42. According to the records of the United States Patent & Trademark
`
`Office (the “USPTO”), the ‘456 Patent is assigned to Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`(the “Patent Owner”). For the reasons provided in detail below, the challenged
`
`claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest in this matter are Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC,
`
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals Company GmbH, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of NY LLC,
`
`and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Company (India) Private Limited.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`As of the filing date of this Petition, Petitioner is aware of the following
`
`matters involving the ‘456 Patent pending now or in the past in any United States
`
`court or administrative agency:
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`(1) Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and
`
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-15439, filed
`
`July 16, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; and
`
`
`
`(2) Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla USA, Inc. and Cipla Limited,
`
`Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-12920-BRM, filed May 25, 2019 in the United States
`
`District Court for the District of New Jersey.
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Donald R. McPhail (USPTO Reg. No. 35,811)
`DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
`
`
`1825 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 659-6928
`Fax: (844) 670-6009
`Email: dmcphail@dickinson-wright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jacqueline Lu (USPTO Reg. No. 68,342)
`DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
`
`
`607 W. 3rd Street, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-4713
`Tel: (737) 484-5535
`Fax: (844) 670-6009
`Email: jlu@dickinson-wright.com
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please address all correspondence to L ead Counsel at the mailing address
`
`shown above. Petitioner also consents to electronic service by email.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that: (1) the ‘456 'Patent issued on September 22,
`
`2015 and so is eligible for Inter Partes Review; (2) Petitioner was served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of claims 1, 2 and 7-11 of the ‘456 patent on July
`
`16, 2019, and so is therefore not barred or estopped from requesting Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ‘456 Patent on the grounds identified herein; and (3) Petitioner has
`
`not filed a complaint challenging the validity of the ‘456 Patent. This Petition is
`
`being filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a).
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis thereof, and the supporting evidence, institute a trial for Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1, 2 and 7-11 of the ‘456 Patent, and cancel those claims as
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, and 7-11 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) over the original label for Cubicin® (Ex. 1004) in view of any one of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,136,783 (Ex. 1005; “Neururkar”), U.S. Patent No. 7,112,565 (Ex.
`
`1006; “Sawai”) or U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0137197 (Ex.
`
`1007; “Mittal”). Cubicin® was approved for sale by the U.S. Food & Drug
`
`Administration in 2003, following which the package labeling was published in the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`Physician’s Desk Reference (Ex. 1014 is from the 60th edition, published in 2006),
`
`and so is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Neururkar was issued
`
`October 24, 2000 and Sawai was issued on September 26, 2006; both are therefore
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Mittal was published on June 3, 2010,
`
`but claims benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`60/937,360, which was filed on June 26, 2007, and so is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1, 2, and 7-11 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) over Inman (Ex. 1008) in view of any one of Neururkar (Ex. 1005), Sawai
`
`(Ex. 1006), or Mittal (Ex. 1007). Inman was published on September 9, 1990, and
`
`so is prior art to the ‘456 Patent under pre-AIA 5 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Technology
`
`The ‘456 Patent is directed to formulations of daptomycin, a cyclic
`
`lipopeptide having the following structure:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`It is and was known by those skilled in the art that pharmaceuticals,
`
`particularly those containing cyclic lipopeptide active agents, can be lyophilized
`
`prior to storage in order to increase the shelf life of the active agent. Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`32. Caspofungin, for example, an FDA-approved cyclic lipopeptide
`
`pharmaceutical composition, is supplied commercially as a lyophilized powder that
`
`is reconstituted with water (or other aqueous-based solvent) prior to administration
`
`to a patient. Id.
`
`
`
`Moreover, it is and was also known by those skilled in the art that cyclic
`
`lipopeptides could be combined with a sugar prior to lyophilization in order to
`
`improve the stability of the resulting lyophilized cake. Ex. 1005 at 3:20-26, Ex.
`
`1006 at 15:54-65, Ex. 1007 at ¶ 4, Ex. 1013 at 9:23-24.
`
`
`
`Among potential stabilizers, disaccharides have proven to be most effective
`
`in stabilizing peptide products during lyophilization. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 39. Sucrose
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`and trehalose are both inert and known to be useful for stabilizing peptide
`
`formulations. Id. When choosing between these two disaccharides for practical
`
`application, however, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (a “POSA”)
`
`would have been aware that there are no approved parenteral formulations
`
`containing trehalose. Ex. 1011 at 973.
`
`
`
`Daptomycin was first approved for human use by the U.S. Food & Drug
`
`Administration in 2003. Much like many other approved cyclic lipopeptide
`
`pharmaceuticals, the approved daptomycin product (Cubicin®) consists of a
`
`lyophilized cake. Ex. 1004 at ll. 14-18. When used, this cake is first reconstituted
`
`with sterile water and then administered to a patient intravenously. Id.
`
`
`
`The Cubicin® cake, however, must be stored at reduced temperature (2°C -
`
`8°C) to prevent degradation of the active ingredient. Ex.1004 at ll. 514-515. The
`
`Cubicin® label also notes the need to avoid exposing the cake to excessive heat, i.e.
`
`temperatures above 40°C. Id.
`
`
`
`It is, and was at the relevant time, known to a POSA that storing and
`
`shipping lyophilized materials at room temperature is easier and cheaper than
`
`storing and shipping the same materials at low temperature. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 at
`
`¶ 4; Ex. 1011 at 969; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 47. For example, when a product can be stored
`
`and shipped at room temperature, there is no longer a need for expensive cooling
`
`equipment and no requirements for special handling. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 47. There was,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`therefore, a need in the art to improve the stability of lyophilized daptomycin
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`compositions at non-refrigerated temperatures.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The ‘456 Patent
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The Claimed Invention
`
`The ‘456 Patent claims pharmaceutical compositions containing the cyclic
`
`lipopeptide daptomycin. More specifically, independent claims 1 and 15 recite a
`
`solid pharmaceutical daptomycin composition prepared by lyophilizing an aqueous
`
`solution of daptomycin and sucrose. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, with claim
`
`2 limiting the molar ratio of daptomycin to sucrose, claims 3-6 requiring the
`
`present of a buffer in the aqueous solution, and claims 7-9 limiting the pH of the
`
`aqueous solution. Claims 10 and 11 claim a pharmaceutical product containing the
`
`solid pharmaceutical daptomycin composition of claim 1 plus a pharmaceutically
`
`acceptable diluent, such as sterile water for injection. Claims 12-14 claim a solid
`
`pharmaceutical daptomycin composition prepared by lyophilizing an aqueous
`
`solution of daptomycin, sucrose, and a buffering agent.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Specification
`
`The ‘346 Application, from which the ‘456 Patent issued, was filed after the
`
`Cubicin® product was first approved for commercial sale by the FDA.
`
`Accordingly, in describing the BACKGROUND of the invention, the specification
`
`of the ‘456 Patent notes that Cubicin® “is supplied as a lyophilized powder that is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`reconstituted and compounded as a pharmaceutical composition for parenteral
`
`administration.” Ex. 1001 at 1:33-37. The specification further notes that the
`
`reconstituted formulation can be prepared from the lyophilized cake by
`
`“combination with a medically appropriate amount of pharmaceutical diluent (e.g.,
`
`0.9% aqueous sodium chloride).” Id. at 1:37-41.
`
`Although not expressly stating that there are problems and/or limitations
`
`associated with Cubicin®, the specification nevertheless states that “[t] here is a need
`
`for solid lipopeptide compositions that rapidly reconstitute (e.g., in less than about 5
`
`minutes) . . ..” Ex. 1001 at 2:39-43. The specification further states that “[t]here is
`
`also a need for solid daptomycin compositions with improved chemical stability . . .
`
`(i.e., higher total percent daptomycin purity over time), providing advantages of
`
`longer shelf life, increased tolerance for more varied storage conditions (e.g., higher
`
`temperature or humidity) . . ..” Id. at 2:51-58.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The Prosecution History
`
`As originally filed, the broadest claim of the ‘346 Application was directed
`
`to solid pharmaceutical daptomycin compositions having certain dissolution
`
`characteristics, but was not limited to any particular process of preparation. Nor
`
`did the claimed composition contain any sucrose.
`
`While the ‘346 Application was pending, however, this claim was rejected
`
`by the examiner at the PTO on various grounds. Among those grounds, the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`examiner rejected certain claims as being identically disclosed by Inman (Ex.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`1008).
`
`In response to the rejection over Inman, the applicant amended the claim to
`
`require that the solid pharmaceutical daptomycin solution be prepared by
`
`lyophilizing an aqueous solution of daptomycin and sucrose. In the REMARKS
`
`that accompanied that amendment, applicant’s representative argued that this
`
`distinguished the claims from Inman because “Inman fails to disclose solid
`
`pharmaceutical formulations, the subject-matter of Applicants’ claims. In addition,
`
`Inman discloses buffered solutions of dextrose, not sucrose, as required by the
`
`instant claims.” Ex. 1002 at 61 (emphasis in original).
`
`In addition, in response to the examiner’s rejection for obviousness,
`
`applicant’s representative argued that the cited prior art
`
`does not teach the surprising stabilizing effect of sucrose on solid
`daptomycin as discovered by the instant inventors, as shown in Table
`4 . . . and in Table 9 (Figure 8) of the application as filed. For
`example, as shown in Table 4, combining 15-20% sucrose with
`daptomycin in a lyophilized composition increases daptomycin
`stability by about 78-96% . . .. In addition, Table 9 (Figure 8) shows
`that sucrose increases the chemical stability of solid daptomycin
`compositions over time at elevated temperature.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 63. Applicant’s representative also contended that the prior art did not
`
`“teach or suggest the surprising rapid reconstitution of solid daptomycin
`
`compositions containing sucrose.” Id. at 64.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`Following applicant’s amendment, the examiner allowed the claims of the
`
`‘346 Application on the grounds that “[a] solid pharmaceutical daptomycin
`
`composition comprising daptomycin and sucrose recited in [the] instant claims . . .
`
`is free of prior art.” Ex. 1002 at 34. The examiner further stated that “Applicant
`
`has presented unexpected results of surprising rapid reconstitution of solid
`
`daptomycin compositions comprising sucrose and increased chemical stability of
`
`such composition [sic] . . ..” Id. The ‘346 Application subsequently issued as the
`
`‘456 Patent. Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`A United States patent is read and understood from the perspective of a
`
`POSA at the time the invention was made. Here, the relevant date is November
`
`23, 2009, i.e. when the inventors named on the ‘456 Patent filed the provisional
`
`patent application to which they claimed benefit.
`
`
`
`A POSA is a hypothetical person presumed to know the relevant prior art. A
`
`POSA is of ordinary creativity, not merely an automaton, and is capable of
`
`combining the teachings of the prior art. Factors that may be used to determine the
`
`level of skill of a POSA may include the education level of those working in the
`
`field, the sophistication of the technology, the types of problems encountered in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`art, prior art solutions to those problems and the speed at which innovations in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`art are made and implemented.
`
`
`
`In this case, the ‘456 Patent is directed to a particular lyophilized
`
`formulation of daptomycin and processes of making the same. Accordingly, a
`
`POSA in the relevant field at that time would have had at least a bachelor of
`
`science degree in one of the pharmaceutical sciences, including pharmaceutical
`
`chemistry and/or pharmaceutics, or a related technical field, and either an advanced
`
`degree (such as a masters or doctorate) or an equivalent amount of work
`
`experience, i.e. 3-5 years, in an area relating to lyophilized pharmaceutical
`
`formulations. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 57.
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`The following construction is proposed using the “plain and ordinary
`
`meaning” standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“about” (challenged claims 2, 7-9)
`
`This term appears in challenged claims 2 and 7-9. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`27:6-8, 25-33; 28:7-8, 14, 34. It is not, however, defined in the specification, nor
`
`was this term defined, implicitly or explicitly, during prosecution of either the ‘456
`
`Patent or its parent, U.S. Patent No. 8,835,382 (Ex. 1010).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits that this term should therefore be construed according to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSA, which is generally
`
`accepted to be “approximately.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 60-61. See also, e.g., Merck &
`
`Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)(“We reverse the district court's construction of ‘about’ and hold that such
`
`term should be given its ordinary meaning of ‘approximately.’”); Ferring B.V. v.
`
`Watson Laboratories, Inc., 764 F3d 1382, 1389 (Fed Cir. 2014)(“We affirm the
`
`district court's construction of ‘about’ to mean ‘approximately,’ as well as its
`
`refusal to construe ‘about’ to represent a particular numerical error rate.”).
`
`
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW EACH CHALLENGED CLAIM OF
`
`THE ‘456 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`
`
`
`The challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art for at least the
`
`following reasons.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, and 7-11 are obvious under
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the Cubicin® label in view
`
`
`of any one of Neururkar, Sawai, or Mittal
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘456 Patent is directed to “[a] solid pharmaceutical
`
`daptomycin composition” prepared by a specified process. Ex. 1001 at 27:2-5.
`
`This same process, however, and the resulting composition are disclosed by the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`combination of the original label for Cubicin® (Ex. 1004) and any one of
`
`Neururkar (Ex. 1005), Sawai (Ex. 1006), or Mittal (Ex. 1007). Ex. 1003 at ¶ 63.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`The Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
`
`
`i.
`
`The Cubicin® label
`
`The Cubicin® label discloses that “Cubicin is supplied as a sterile,
`
`preservative-free, pale yellow to light brown, lyophilized cake containing
`
`approximately 900 mg/g of Daptomycin . . ..” Ex. 1004 at ll. 14-16. The Cubicin®
`
`label also discloses that the lyophilized daptomycin cake must be stored at
`
`refrigerated temperature, avoiding excess heat. Id. at ll. 515-516. The Cubicin®
`
`label does not, however, disclose that the cake is prepared by lyophilizing an
`
`aqueous solution of daptomycin and sucrose. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 64. Nor does the
`
`Cubicin label disclose that the lyophilized daptomycin cake contains any sucrose.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`Neururkar
`
`Neururkar (Ex. 1005) issued as a United States Letters Patent on October
`
`24, 2000 and therefore qualifies as prior art against the ‘456 Patent under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Neururkar teaches that stability and shelf-life are important factors in
`
`determining whether a lyophilized pharmaceutical product will be “attractive as a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`commercial product.” Ex. 1005 at 2:66-3:2. To satisfy the need for increased
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`stability and extended shelf-life, Neururkar further teaches that
`
`The formulations of th[is] invention provide enhanced chemical
`stability to the pharmaceutical compositions. One advantage of such
`stability is extended pharmaceutical product shelf life. . . . Extended
`pharmaceutical shelf life offers significant economic advantages.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 2:20-28.
`
`
`
`Regarding the specifics of the inventive formulation, Neururkar discloses
`
`that
`
`The invention relates to a pharmaceutical composition comprising:
`
`a) a pharmaceutically effective amount of [a cyclic
`lipopeptide] and the pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof;
`
`b) a pharmaceutically acceptable amount of an acetate buffer
`effective to provide a pH of between about 4 and 7; and
`
`c) a pharmaceutically acceptable amount of an excipient
`such as a sucrose/mannitol mixture to form a lyophilized cake.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 1:36-2:3 (emphasis added).1
`
`
`
`To explain the selection of the particular excipient employed, Neururkar
`
`discloses that
`
`Excipients such as bulking agents, i.e., excipient sugars, are used to
`provide an aesthetically suitable lyophilized cake, solid dilution of the
`active ingredient, and sorption of available moisture. Sugars useful
`in the invention include sucrose, lactose, mannitol or combinations
`thereof. It has been found that sucrose and mannitol provide a
`
`
`1 Although Neururkar discloses the use of a mixture of sucrose and mannitol in the
`solution to be lyophilized, the claims of the ‘456 Patent do not preclude the
`presence of other excipients in the solution in addition to sucrose. See, e.g., Ex.
`1001 at 27:2-5 (“solution comprising daptomycin and sucrose.” (emphasis added)).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`more stable formulation and form a pharmaceutically elegant
`cake for the composition.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 3:20-26.
`
`
`
`Neururkar discloses that the inventive pharmaceutical composition, having
`
`enhanced stability and increased shelf-life, can be prepared by lyophilizing an
`
`aqueous solution of the active cyclic lipopeptide and sucrose. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 70.
`
`More specifically, Neururkar discloses that
`
`The compositions of the invention are generally prepared as
`
`follows:
`
`1) a bulking agent [e.g. sucrose] or combination of agents is
`dissolved in water;
`
`2) acetic acid is added and the pH is adjusted to about 3.7, if
`required;
`
`3) [the cyclic lipopeptide] is added and dissolved with the pH
`subsequently adjusted to about 5 to about 6 with base;
`
`4) the solution is filtered and filled into a lyophilization vial and
`frozen at -50 ºC;
`
`5) the frozen formulation is freeze dried at -20 ºC, with a
`secondary drying at 15ºC (the complete cycle takes over two days);
`and
`
`
`6) lyophilized vials are stoppered and stored at about 5ºC.
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at 3:36-50.
`
`
`
`Neururkar therefore teaches preparing a lyophilized pharmaceutical
`
`composition exhibiting enhanced stability and prolonged shelf life by lyophilizing
`
`an aqueous solution containing a cyclic lipopeptide and sucrose. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 71.
`
`Neururkar does not, however, disclose daptomycin as the cyclic lipopeptide in the
`
`inventive pharmaceutical composition. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii. Mittal
`
`Mittal (Ex. 1007) was published on June 3, 2010, but claims benefit of the
`
`filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/937,360, which was filed
`
`on June 26, 2007, and so is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`Mittal also teaches that stability and shelf-life are important features in a
`
`lyophilized cyclic lipopeptide pharmaceutical product. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 72. More
`
`specifically, Mittal teaches that
`
`Lyophilized, acetate-buffered, caspofungin products such as
`CANCIDAS are characterized by good storage stability at low
`temperature (e.g., 2ºC to 8 ºC) under ambient storage conditions.
`More particularly, the compositions can be stored at low temperature
`(e.g., 5ºC) for many months with minimal formation of degradates.
`Nonetheless, lyophilized caspofungin-containing products with
`improved storage stability at low temperatures and/or satisfactory
`storage stability at higher temperatures is desirable. Improved
`storage stability at about 5 ºC would provide for a longer shelf life
`thereby reducing the potential for product loss. Satisfactory
`storage stability at room temperature would eliminate the need
`for refrigeration and the special handling and extra costs
`associated therewith.
`
`Ex. 1007 at ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Mittal discloses that “[t]he lyophilized anti-
`
`fungal composition of the present invention has good chemical and storage
`
`stability at and below room temperature (i.e., at or below about 30ºC).” Ex. 1007
`
`at ¶ 13.
`
`Mittal discloses that
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`A first embodiment of the present invention (alternatively referred to
`herein as "Embodiment E1") is a lyophilized composition as originally
`described (i.e., as described in the Summary of the Invention) wherein
`the one or more non-reducing sugars is selected from the group
`consisting of trehalose, sucrose, raffinose, sorbitol and combinations
`thereof.
`
`Ex. 1007 at ¶ 15 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Mittal further discloses that this lyophilized composition can be
`
`prepared by the following process:
`
`(A) preparing an aqueous solution with a pH in a range of
`from about 5 to about 7 and comprising an effective amount of
`caspofungin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
`[and] one or more non-reducing sugars having a glass
`transition temperature Tg(s) of at least about 90ºC, and an
`acetate buffer, wherein the concentration ratio, on a weight per
`unit volume basis, of the one or more non-reducing sugars to
`caspofungin is in a range of from about 1.1:1 to about 10:1; and
`(B) freeze-drying the aqueous solution to provide the
`lyophilized anti-fungal composition.
`
`
`Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 68-69 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Mittal therefore teaches preparing a lyophilized pharmaceutical composition
`
`exhibiting enhanced stability, including stability at higher temperatures, and longer
`
`shelf life by lyophilizing an aqueous solution containing a cyclic lipopeptide and
`
`sucrose. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 75. Mittal does not, however, disclose daptomycin as the
`
`cyclic lipopeptide in the inventive pharmaceutical composition. Id.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv.
`
`Sawai
`
`Sawai (Ex. 1006) issued as a United State Letters Patent on September 26,
`
`2006 and therefore qualifies as prior art against the ‘456 Patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Although not expressly stating the benefits thereof like Neururkar and
`
`Mittal, Sawai teaches that
`
`The present invention relates to a stabilized pharmaceutical
`composition in lyophilized form containing a cyclic polypeptide
`compound. More particularly, the present invention relates to a
`stabilized pharmaceutical composition in lyophilized form containing
`a cyclic polypeptide compound or its pharmaceutically acceptable salt
`and a stabilizer.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 1:11-17. Sawai further teaches that
`
`According to the present invention, provided is a composition in
`lyophilized form in which the cyclic polypeptide compound (I) or
`its pharmaceutically acceptable salt are stabilized by a stabilizer
`such as polysaccharide, disaccharide and sodium chloride. The
`mechanism of the stabilization of the cyclic polypeptide compound (I)
`or its pharmaceutically acceptable salt by the stabilizer such as
`polysaccharide, disaccharide and sodium chloride is still to be
`unknown, but it may be that the stabilizer adsorbs water in lyophilized
`cakes and that the stabilizer serves to disperse the compound or its
`pharmaceutically acceptable salt uniformly in the composition.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 15:54-65 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`To prepare this inventive stabilized pharmaceutical compositions, Sawai
`
`discloses that
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,138,456 B2
`
`
`
`The lyophilized composition may be obtained by preparing an
`aqueous solution of the cyclic polypeptide compound (I) or its
`pharmaceutically acceptable salt and the stabilizer, optionally adding
`a pH adjustor (citric acid anhydrous, sodium hydroxide, etc.) as
`required to attain pH 4.0 7.5, preferably pH 4.5 7.0, and then
`lyophilizing the resulting solution in vial according to a
`conventional method. Thus, the stabilized pharmaceutical composition
`in lyophilized form, when dissolved in purified water, preferably
`gives a solution of pH 4.0 to 7.5, more preferably pH 4.5 to 7.0.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 10:34-43 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Finally, with respect to the particular stabilizer to employ in the lyophilized
`
`composition, Sawai teaches that
`
`As the stabilizer, may be mentioned polysaccharides, disaccharides,
`sodium chloride and a combination thereof. Examples of the
`polysaccharide are dextran, starch, cellulose and hyaluronic acid; and
`examples of the disaccharide are lactose, maltose and sucrose. The
`polysaccharide or disaccharide contained in the pharmaceutical
`composition of the present invention may be -monohydrate, -
`anhydride, -anhydride or a combination thereof.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 9:34-41 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Sawai therefore teaches preparing a stabilized lyophilized pharmaceutical
`
`composition by lyophilizing an aqueous solution containing a cyclic lipopeptide
`
`and sucrose. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 79. Sawai does not, however, disclose daptomycin as
`
`the cyclic lipopeptide in the inventive pharmaceutical composition. Id.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. P