`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
` v.
`
`SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO., LTD
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. THOMAS R. KOSTEN, M.D.
`
`
`
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`
`PAGE 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`1.
`
`I, Thomas R. Kosten, M.D., have been retained by counsel for
`
`Petitioner Slayback Pharma LLC (Petitioner or Slayback). I understand that
`
`Petitioner seeks inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent 9,815,827 (EX-1001,
`
`‘827 Patent), assigned to Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. (Patent Owner) to
`
`request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office cancel claims 1-75 of the
`
`‘827 patent as unpatentable. I submit this expert declaration in support of Petitioner’s
`
`IPR Petition for the ‘827 patent.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Education and Experience
`
`2. My education and experience includes training as a medical doctor with
`
`board certification in Psychiatry from the American Board of Psychiatry and
`
`Neurology.
`
`3.
`
`I am presently a professor in the Departments of Psychiatry,
`
`Pharmacology and Neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine, Vice-Chair of
`
`Psychiatry and founding Director of the Division of Addictive Disorders and
`
`Alcoholism. I have directed psychiatric treatment programs for over 25 years
`
`including the Yale University and Veterans Administration (VA) programs in
`
`Connecticut and now in Houston, Texas. I am also the past national Director for the
`
`VA substance use disorders Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Center, which
`
`monitors and sets standards for the quality of VA substance abuse care.
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`4.
`
`In my practice, I have had numerous opportunities to determine when
`
`individuals are treated appropriately with a full range of psychotropic medications
`
`including antipsychotics such as Latuda® (lurasidone HCl) and complications of
`
`these treatments. Because of my education, training and experience, I can provide
`
`an expert opinion on this class of antipsychotic medications, their development and
`
`their application to a range of psychiatric disorders including, but not limited to,
`
`schizophrenia and non-schizophrenic disorders such as and including bipolar
`
`disorders.
`
`5.
`
`I have treated hundreds of patients with antipsychotic medications such
`
`as lurasidone.
`
`6.
`
`Since 2001, based on an annual ranking by U.S. News & World Report,
`
`I have retained the distinction of “Top Doc” in the field of psychiatry; rated in the
`
`top 10% of Addictions Medicine, and top 1%, of United States physicians
`
`nationwide. I am an editor for the American Journal on Addictions and was on the
`
`editorial boards of the American Journal of Psychiatry and major journals in the field
`
`of psychiatry.
`
`7.
`
`I am a Distinguished Life Fellow in the American Psychiatric
`
`Association and the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), the
`
`organization responsible for the journal Neuropsychopharmacology.
`
`8.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Biophysics from Rensselaer
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`Polytechnic Institute/Troy, NY in 1973 and a Medical Degree from Cornell
`
`University Medical College/New York, NY in 1977.
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A and provides
`
`all 750 of my publications. In it are detailed my internationally recognized
`
`credentials as an expert in psychiatric disorders including schizophrenic, substance
`
`use, anxiety and affective disorders, which includes bipolar disorders.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`10.
`
`In forming my opinions set forth in this declaration, I considered and
`
`relied upon my education, background, and years of experience in the practice of
`
`medicine in the field of psychiatry, as well as the materials identified in this
`
`Declaration. The materials considered are listed in Exhibit C.
`
`C.
`
`11.
`
`Scope of Work, Compensation, Other Matters
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner in connection with this
`
`matter. I am being compensated for my consulting work at the rate of $450 per hour.
`
`My compensation in this case is in no way dependent on the outcome of this matter.
`
`A list of the cases since 2014 where I have testified as an expert is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`12. As discussed in this Declaration:
`
`a)
`
`It is my opinion that the methods of treatment claimed in the manic
`
`depressive claims of the ‘827 Patent are disclosed in Latuda® Information
`
`(EX-1007), and therefore, each manic depressive claim of the ‘827 Patent is
`
`anticipated by Latuda® Information.
`
`b)
`
`It is my opinion that the manic depressive claims were obvious to a
`
`POSA when Latuda® Information (EX-1007) and Loebel (EX-1008) are viewed in
`
`light of the state of the art prior to August 27, 2013.
`
`c)
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-75 of the ‘827 Patent are invalid for
`
`obviousness over the Saji Patent (EX-1009) in light of the prior art.
`
`13. The claims of the ‘827 Patent (EX-1001) relate to methods of using
`
`lurasidone or its salts to treat psychiatric disorders. Some issued claims of the ‘827
`
`Patent are limited to treating schizophrenia. Other issued claims of the ‘827 Patent,
`
`referred to herein as the “manic depressive claims” comprise treating “manic
`
`depressive psychosis.”
`
`14. The manic depressive claims of the ‘827 Patent all require:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 5
`
`
`treating manic depressive psychosis;
`
`by administering lurasidone or its salts;
`
`orally;
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`
`
`
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`at specific daily amounts;
`
`without a clinically significant weight gain.
`
`15. The Priority Application (EX-1004), U.S. Patent Application
`
`10/525,021, does not show a person of skill in the art (POSA, defined later) that the
`
`inventors of the Priority Application possessed the method of using lurasidone or its
`
`salts to treat “manic depressive psychosis” as required by the manic depressive
`
`claims of the ‘827 Patent.
`
`16. The term “manic depressive psychosis” is old and vague and is not used
`
`in modern psychiatric practice. Nevertheless, a POSA understood that the Examiner
`
`and inventors of the ‘827 Patent referred to “manic depressive psychosis” as either
`
`“bipolar illness” or “bipolar disorder.” During 2001-2014, and through 2017 if
`
`relevant, a POSA understood “Bipolar Disorders” to include Bipolar I Disorder,
`
`Bipolar II Disorder, Cyclothymia and Bipolar Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.
`
`17. A POSA understood that a disclosure of treating major depressive
`
`episodes associated with bipolar I disorder disclosed treating manic depressive
`
`psychosis.
`
`18. Before August 21, 2001 a POSA expected that the administration of
`
`lurasidone HCl as an antipsychotic to at least some patients with schizophrenia or
`
`bipolar I disorder would not lead to weight gain.
`
`19. Before August 21, 2001 it was routine to develop appropriate dosing
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`regimens in the ordinary course of drug development.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed of certain legal standards and I have applied these
`
`standards in rendering my opinions.
`
`21. My understanding of written description is in Paragraph 57, below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a Person of Ordinary Skill, a POSA, is a hypothetical
`
`person possessing the education, training, experience, skill and knowledge of the
`
`ordinary practitioner in the field of an alleged invention, is presumed to know the
`
`relevant art at the time of an invention, and can rely on the knowledge and skill of
`
`others if it was ordinary to do so. A POSA is not an automaton and would employ
`
`the inferences and creative steps of a person in the relevant field. My definition of
`
`a POSA with respect to the ‘827 Patent is in Paragraph 30, below.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that to prove anticipation or obviousness, it is a
`
`Petitioner’s ultimate burden to prove anticipation or obviousness by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the question of whether the claims of a patent are
`
`anticipated or obvious is considered from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (a POSA). Whether a claim would have been anticipated or obvious
`
`is ascertained at the relevant time period.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves ascertaining the
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`scope and content of the prior art, the level of the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art and
`
`whether there are additional factors present that may nevertheless weigh against
`
`obviousness such as unexpected results attributable to the actually claimed.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that under the existing law, in assessing obviousness when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, a POSA has good reason
`
`to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this would lead to
`
`the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, it is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The fact a
`
`combination of elements was obvious to try can show that it was obvious.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if the
`
`prior art reference discloses subject matter within the scope of the claim, with all of
`
`the claim limitations.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that claim elements can be disclosed in the prior art either
`
`expressly or inherently. In assessing anticipation, a claim element is inherent in a
`
`reference if that element, or characteristic, is the natural result that flows from the
`
`reference’s disclosure.
`
`29.
`
`In assessing obviousness, a claim element is inherent when it is the
`
`natural result that flows from what is otherwise obvious.
`
`
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`30. The claims of the ‘827 Patent (EX-1001) relate to using lurasidone or
`
`its salts as an antipsychotic to treat psychiatric disorders. A POSA had the education
`
`and experience of a medical doctor trained in psychiatry who spent several years
`
`using psychiatric medications to treat patients with schizophrenia and bipolar
`
`disorders and had several years experience developing or investigating psychiatric
`
`medications, and was familiar with the literature on drugs for schizophrenia and
`
`bipolar disorders.
`
`31.
`
`In rendering my opinions, I understand that the knowledge and
`
`literature available to a POSA depends on the particular timeframe being considered.
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS
`
`32. Many persons who suffer from psychiatric disorders can benefit from
`
`medical intervention, which can include the administration of psychiatric
`
`medications.
`
`33. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) is
`
`a widely used tool and reference for persons treating psychiatric disorders. During
`
`the time period 2001-2014, the editions of the included DSM-IV (1994) (EX-1022),
`
`DSM-IV-TR (2000) (EX-1023) and DSM-5 (2013) (EX-1024).1
`
`34. At all points in time during the period 2001-2017, as reflected in the
`
`
`1 EX-1022, -1023 and -1024 contain relevant portions from the respective DSM’s.
`{80233092:1}
`
`
`PAGE 9
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`DSM, a POSA considered schizophrenia and bipolar disorders to be different
`
`psychiatric conditions. See EX-1022, -1023 and -1024.
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,815,827 (EX-1001)
`
`
`35.
`
`I have read the ‘827 Patent (EX-1001). I understand that the ‘827
`
`Patent issued from the ‘827 Patent Application (EX-1003), filed in the U.S. Patent
`
`Office August 28, 2014. I have reviewed EX-1046, which I understand to be the file
`
`history of the ‘827 Patent Application at the U.S. Patent Office, beginning with the
`
`August 28, 2014 filing of the ‘827 Patent Application (EX-1003).
`
`36. The ‘827 Patent (EX-1001) lists 75 claims at columns 10-14. When I
`
`cite to a patent, “X:Y-Z” means column “X”, lines “Y” to “Z”.
`
`37. The claims of the ‘827 Patent (EX-1001) divide into two groups:
`
`Claims comprising treating
`
`Claims 8-18, 25-28, 30-31, 33-44, 46, 48-60, 62, 64,
`
`manic depressive psychosis
`
`66, 67, 69, 71, 73 and 75 (manic depressive claims)
`
`Claims limited to treating
`
`Claims 1-7, 19-24, 29, 32, 45, 47, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70,
`
`schizophrenia
`
`72 and 74 (schizophrenia claims)
`
`
`
`38. Claims 8-18, 25-28, 30-31, 33-44, 46, 48-60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73
`
`and 75 comprise treating “manic depressive psychosis” and are referred to as the
`
`“manic depressive claims.”
`
`39. Claims 1-7, 19-24, 29, 32, 45, 47, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 72 and 74 are
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`restricted to treating “schizophrenia” and are referred to as the “schizophrenia
`
`claims.”
`
`40. The ‘827 Patent (EX-1001) repeatedly states the “present invention” is
`
`a method of using a specific chemical or its salts to treat “schizophrenia.” See EX-
`
`1001, Abstract, Technical Field (1:14-17), Disclosure of the Invention (2:45-46),
`
`Detailed Description of the Invention (3:42-53) and Industrial Applicability (10:29-
`
`41) (emphasis added).
`
`41. The ‘827 Patent identifies the compound of the “present invention” by
`
`its chemical name and structural formula:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chemical name (EX-1001, 2:51-54):
`
`(1R,2S,3R,4S)-N-[(1R,2R)-2-[4-(l,2-benzoisothiazol-3-yl)-l-
`
`piperazinylmethyl]-1-cyclohexylmethyl]-2,3-bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-
`
`dicarboximide;
`
`
`
`Structural formula (id., 2:55-67):
`
`
`42. This compound is lurasidone (see e.g. EX-1047, p. 4). The
`
`hydrochloride salt of this compound is lurasidone hydrochloride, a/k/a lurasidone
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`HCl, and lurasidone HCL is identified in the ‘827 Patent as “SM-13496.” EX-1001,
`
`4:47-50.
`
`43. The ‘827 Patent reports a “First Stage Phase II Clinical Trial,” wherein
`
`“patients with schizophrenia” were administered placebo or SM-13496” (i.e.
`
`lurasidone HCl), but it does not report giving any drug to any patient with “manic
`
`depressive psychoses.” See EX-1001, 5:1-12.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that the priority chain leading to the ‘827 Patent starts with
`
`Provisional Application, EX-1005, filed at the U.S. Patent Office August 22, 2002.
`
`45.
`
`I have read Provisional Application, EX-1005. The term “manic
`
`depressive psychoses” appears in the Provisional Application exactly once, under
`
`the heading “Background Art.” Id., p. 2, ln. 25. The Provisional Application
`
`contains no mention of using lurasidone to treat anything besides schizophrenia and
`
`there is no association in the Provisional Application of lurasidone or its salts with
`
`“manic depressive psychoses.” EX-1005.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that the priority chain leading to the ‘827 Patent continues
`
`with Priority Application, EX-1004, filed at the U.S. Patent Office August 20, 2003.
`
`47.
`
`I have read the Priority Application, EX-1004. The claims of the
`
`Priority Application were limited to: a method for “treatment of schizophrenia”
`
`(claims 1-13); an “agent for treatment of schizophrenia” (claims 14-16); and the
`
`“preparation of an agent for treatment of schizophrenia” (claims 17-19). EX-1004.
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`48. The term “manic depressive psychoses” appears in the Priority
`
`Application exactly once, under the heading “Background Art.” EX-1004, p. 2, ln.
`
`30. The Priority Application contains no mention of using lurasidone or its salts to
`
`treat anything besides schizophrenia and there is no association in the Priority
`
`Application of lurasidone with “manic depressive psychoses.” EX-1004.
`
`49.
`
`I understand that the chain of applications leading to the ‘827 Patent
`
`continues with the ‘827 Patent Application, EX-1003, filed at the U.S. Patent Office
`
`August 28, 2014.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`50.
`I have been asked to give my opinions on what a POSA would
`
`understand certain claim terms of the ‘827 Patent to mean. My opinions remain the
`
`same for the entire period 2001-2017.
`
`51. The claims of the ‘827 Patent include the terms “a patient” and “the
`
`patient.” In the context of the ‘827 Patent, a POSA would read “a patient” and “the
`
`patient” according to their plain meaning, i.e. singular, and would not understand “a
`
`patient” and “the patient” to mean a patient population.
`
`52. Claim 6 of the ‘827 Patent uses the term “said patient has a BPRS score
`
`of at least 42.” In discussing the selection criteria of a subject for the clinical trial,
`
`the ‘827 Patent (EX-1001) lists as criterion “2” “Patients having 42 or more of
`
`Extracted-BPRS Score.” EX-1001, 5:26. The BPRS score recited in claim 6 is
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`clearly a characteristic of an individual, and construing “a patient” or “the patient”
`
`to mean “patient population” would cause claim 6 to not make sense.
`
`53. Three claims of the ‘827 Patent (EX-1001, claims 25, 40 and 56) recite
`
`“treating a patient with an antipsychotic.” A POSA would read this language to
`
`comprise “treating a patient for schizophrenia with an antipsychotic” and “treating
`
`a patient for manic depressive psychosis with an antipsychotic.” In particular, each
`
`of claims 25, 40 and 56 has a dependent claim which recites that “the method treats
`
`schizophrenia in the patient,” and another dependent claim reciting “the method
`
`treats manic depressive psychosis in the patient.” EX-1001: claims 25, 29 and 30;
`
`claims 40, 45 and 46; and claims 56, 61 and 62. For these pairings to make sense,
`
`“treating a patient with an antipsychotic” must comprise “treating a patient for
`
`schizophrenia with an antipsychotic” and “treating a patient for manic depressive
`
`psychosis with an antipsychotic.”
`
`54. Some claims of ‘827 Patent recite treating “manic depressive
`
`psychosis.” “Manic depressive psychosis” is an old and vague term not used in
`
`modern psychiatric practice. “Manic depressive psychosis” was not listed in DSM
`
`during 2001-2017. EX-1022, DSM-IV (1994); EX-1023, DSM-IV-TR (2000); and
`
`EX-1024, DSM-5 (2013).
`
`55. Although “manic depressive psychosis” is a vague and ill-defined term,
`
`a (POSA) reading the prosecution of the ‘827 Patent Application (EX-1046)
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`appreciates that the Examiner and the inventors understood “manic depressive
`
`psychosis” to mean “bipolar illness” or “bipolar disorder”. EX-1033, p. 4 (Examiner
`
`stating: “manic depressive psychosis is typically referred to as bipolar illness.”); EX-
`
`1034, p. 14 (applicants stating: “present application relates to a method of treating a
`
`patient with schizophrenia or manic depressive psychosis (bipolar disorder)”).
`
`56. During 2001-2017 a POSA understood that “Bipolar Disorders”
`
`included Bipolar I Disorder, Bipolar II Disorder, Cyclothymia and Bipolar Disorder
`
`Not Otherwise Specified. DSM-IV (1994) (EX-1022), DSM-IV-TR (2000) (EX-
`
`1023) and DSM-5 (2013) (EX-1024). A POSA understood patients with Bipolar I
`
`Disorder experience manic episodes, major depressive episodes and mixed episodes.
`
`Id. Although “manic depressive psychosis” is not well-defined, a POSA would
`
`understand “manic depressive psychosis” to comprise “Bipolar Disorders.”
`
`VIII. THE MANIC DEPRESSIVE CLAIMS LACK WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION IN THE PRIORITY APPLICATION
`57.
` I understand that to satisfy written description a patent application must
`
`convey with reasonable clarity to a POSA that the inventor was in possession of the
`
`claimed invention. The application must clearly allow a POSA to recognize that the
`
`inventor actually invented and set forth in the specification what is claimed. I
`
`understand that disclosure of a species does not describe a genus and that the mere
`
`inclusion in the application of words recited in the claims is not written
`
`description. I understand that assessing written description requires an objective
`{80233092:1}
`
`
`PAGE 15
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`analysis of what is actually disclosed in the application itself, sometimes called “an
`
`inquiry into the four corners of the specification.” Finally, I understand that even if
`
`the disclosure in an application renders a claimed invention obvious, that is not in
`
`and of itself satisfaction of the written description requirement.
`
`58. Claim 8 of the ‘827 Patent (EX-1001) reads as follows:
`
`8. A method for treating manic depressive psychosis in a
`patient without a clinically significant weight gain,
`comprising:
`administering orally
`to
`the patient
`(1R,2S,3R,4S)-N-[(1R, 2R)-2-[4-(l,2-benzoisothiazol-3-
`yl)-l-piperazinylmethyl]-l-cyclohexylmethyl]-2,3-
`a
`bicyclo[2.2.1]heptanedicarboximide
`or
`pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof at a dose of from
`20 to 120mg/day such that the patient does not experience
`a clinically significant weight gain.
`
`Reduced to its elements, claim 8 requires:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`“treating manic depressive psychosis in a patient”
`
`by “administering orally”;
`
`“[lurasidone] or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof”;
`
`“at a dose of from 20 to 120 mg/day”, and;
`
`“the patient does not experience a clinically significant weight
`
`gain. EX-1001, claim 8.
`
`59. The Priority Application (EX-1004) recites a clinical trial of lurasidone
`
`HCl for treating schizophrenia, but a POSA knows that schizophrenia and manic
`
`depressive psychosis are different psychiatric illnesses. DSM-IV (1994) (EX-1022),
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`DSM-IV-TR (2000) (EX-1023) and DSM-5 (2013) (EX-1024). There is no
`
`disclosure in the Priority Application (EX-1004) of using lurasidone or its salts to
`
`treat manic depressive psychoses with any dosing regimen, let alone the specific
`
`regimens recited in representative claim 8 and the other manic depressive claims.
`
`60. A POSA reading within the four corners of the Priority Application
`
`would see that the inventor’s did not possess the invention of claim 8 and the other
`
`manic depressive claims because:
`
`
`
`a)
`
`The Priority Application (EX-1004) mentions “manic depressive
`
`psychoses” only once, and only in the context of generally stating that an enormous
`
`genus of compounds “may be useful as an antipsychotic…for treatment of
`
`schizophrenia, senile
`
`insanity, manic depressive psychoses, and nervous
`
`breakdown….” EX-1004, p. 2, ln. 26-p. 3, ln. 7. The genus is described in the
`
`Priority Application as follows:
`
`
`
`b)
`
`The Priority Application never refers to using lurasidone to treat
`
`
`
`manic depressive psychosis;
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`
`
`c)
`
`The Priority Application
`
`includes a single clinical
`
`trial
`
`“Experiment 1” of treating “patients with schizophrenia” (EX-1004, p. 8);
`
`
`
`d)
`
`The Priority Application repeatedly states that the “present
`
`invention” is the use of lurasidone and its salts to treat schizophrenia (EX-1004, pp.
`
`1, 4, 5, 6, 17, and 22);
`
`
`
`e)
`
`The claims of the Priority Application are all limited to treatment
`
`of “schizophrenia” (id., claims 1-19, beginning at p. 19);
`
`
`
`f)
`
`A POSA knew in 2002 and 2003 (when the Provisional and
`
`Priority Applications were filed) that if administering a drug according to a certain
`
`regimen was shown to treat schizophrenia, that did not mean that administering that
`
`drug in the same way was useful for treating other psychiatric conditions;
`
`
`
`g)
`
`The Priority Application’s Title is “Agent for The Treatment of
`
`Schizophrenia” (id. p. 1); and
`
`
`
`h)
`
`The Priority Application (EX-1004) contains no association
`
`between lurasidone or its salts and the treatment of manic depressive psychosis.
`
`61. Simply put, a POSA reading the Priority Application would understand
`
`that in the inventors’ minds the Priority Application was only about the use of
`
`lurasidone to treat schizophrenia.
`
`62. The Provisional Application (EX-1005) adds nothing with respect to
`
`the treatment of manic depressive psychosis compared to Priority Application (EX-
`
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`1004) itself.
`
`VII.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`A.
`Latuda® Information Discloses the Manic Depressive Claims
`63.
`I understand that if Latuda® Information (EX-1007) qualifies under the
`
`law as prior art to a manic depressive claim of the ‘827 Patent and Latuda®
`
`Information discloses the alleged invention of that claim, that claim is invalid
`
`because it is “anticipated” by Latuda® Information.
`
`64.
`
`It is my opinion that Latuda® Information (EX-1007) discloses the
`
`alleged invention of each manic depressive claim because Latuda® Information
`
`discloses each element of the manic depressive claims in a method of using
`
`lurasidone HCl to treat major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.
`
`65. Therefore, assuming Latuda® Information is prior art to the manic
`
`depressive claims of the ‘827 Patent, it is my opinion that each manic depressive
`
`claim is invalid because it is anticipated by Latuda® Information.
`
`1. treating manic depressive psychosis in a patient
`66. Latuda® Information (EX-1007) is a detailed announcement in the
`
`American Journal of Psychiatry telling psychiatrists and other psychiatric care
`
`givers that “Latuda® (lurasidone HCl)” was “Now Approved” for “Adult Patients”
`
`with “Bipolar Depression” and it specifically states under “Indications” that
`
`“LATUDA is indicated for • Treatment of major depressive episodes associated with
`
`bipolar I disorder (bipolar depression) as monotherapy and as adjunctive therapy
`{80233092:1}
`
`
`PAGE 19
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`with lithium or valproate in adults.” Treating major depressive episodes associated
`
`with bipolar I disorder discloses “treating manic depressive psychosis in a patient.”
`
`Thus, Latuda® Information discloses “treating manic depressive psychosis in a
`
`patient.”
`
`2. administering orally
`67. Latuda® Information discloses Latuda® as “(lurasidone HCl) tablets.”
`
`Oral administration is the preferred route for administering drugs and a POSA
`
`reading “tablets” in Latuda® Information immediately knew and envisaged that
`
`Latuda® was in the form of tablets for oral use. See also EX-1037, Latuda Label
`
`2012, Sec. 11. Description (“LATUDA tablets are intended for oral administration
`
`only”); EX-1035, June 2013 Press Release (“taken with food”). Thus, Latuda®
`
`Information discloses oral administration.
`
`3. lurasidone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof
`68. Latuda® Information discloses Latuda® as “(lurasidone HCl) tablets.”
`
`Lurasidone HCl is a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of lurasidone. Thus, Latuda®
`
`Information discloses lurasidone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of lurasidone.
`
`4. at a dose of from 20 to 120 mg/day
`69. Latuda® Information discloses “a short-term, placebo-controlled
`
`premarketing study for bipolar depression in which LATUDA was administered at
`
`daily doses ranging from 20 to 120 mg.” Thus, Latuda® Information discloses “a
`
`dose of from 20 to 120 mg/day.”
`{80233092:1}
`
`PAGE 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`5. patient does not experience a clinically significant weight gain
`70. Latuda® Information discloses: “In the uncontrolled, open-label,
`
`longer-term bipolar depression study, patients who received LATUDA as
`
`monotherapy in the short-term and continued in the longer-term study had a mean
`
`change in weight of -0.02 kg at week 24 (n=130).” This discloses “one or more
`
`patients” do not “experience a clinically significant weight gain.” Also, without a
`
`weight gain in one or more patients is an inherent property of administering
`
`lurasidone HCl. Thus, Latuda® Information discloses the patient does not
`
`experience a clinically significant weight gain.
`
`6. lurasidone hydrochloride
`71. Latuda® Information discloses “(lurasidone HCl) tablets.” Lurasidone
`
`HCl is lurasidone hydrochloride. Thus, Latuda® Information discloses lurasidone
`
`hydrochloride.
`
`7. patient does not experience a clinically significant weight gain
`after six weeks of administration.
`72. Latuda® Information discloses “a 6-week monotherapy study in adult
`
`patients with bipolar depression,” a longer “24 week study,” that in the “short-term
`
`study” “[t]he mean weight gain was 0.29 kg for LATUDA-treated patients” and
`
`“[t]he proportion of patients with ≥ 7% increase in body weight (at Endpoint) was
`
`2.4% for LATUDA-treated patients.” This discloses that at least a patient does not
`
`experience a clinically significant weight gain after six weeks of administration.
`{80233092:1}
`
`
`PAGE 21
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`Also, without a weight gain in one or more patients is an inherent property of
`
`administering lurasidone HCl. Latuda® Information discloses that at least a patient
`
`does not experience a clinically significant weight gain after six weeks of
`
`administration.
`
`8. detecting a weight gain after six weeks of administration.
`73. Latuda® Information discloses “a 6-week monotherapy study in adult
`
`patients with bipolar depression,” a longer “24 week study,” that in the “short-term
`
`study” “[t]he mean weight gain was 0.29 kg for LATUDA-treated patients” and
`
`“[t]he proportion of patients with ≥ 7% increase in body weight (at Endpoint) was
`
`2.4% for LATUDA-treated patients.” This discloses detecting a weight gain after
`
`six weeks of administration. Thus, Latuda® Information discloses detecting a
`
`weight gain after six weeks of administration.
`
`9. without concurrently administering another antipsychotic
`medication
`74. Latuda® Information discloses administration of Latuda® “as
`
`monotherapy.” This discloses that the drug (lurasidone HCl) is administered
`
`“without concurrently administering another antipsychotic medication.” Thus,
`
`Latuda® Information discloses without concurrently administering another
`
`antipsychotic medication.
`
`10. treating a patient with an antipsychotic
`75. Lurasidone HCl is an antipsychotic, and Latuda® Information
`{80233092:1}
`
`
`PAGE 22
`
`
`SLAYBACK EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`discloses: treating bipolar I patients with lurasidone HCl, described therein as an
`
`“antipsychotic”; “LATUDA and other antipsychotic drugs”; and “As with other
`
`antipsychotic drugs, LATUDA should be used cautiously.” Latuda® Information
`
`discloses treating a patient, with lurasidone HCl, an antipsychotic, for major
`
`depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, which discloses treating a
`
`patient for manic depressive psychosis with an antipsychotic. Thus Latuda®
`
`Information discloses treating a patient for manic depressive psychosis with an
`
`antipsychotic.2
`
`11. a composition comprising lurasidone or a pharmaceutically
`acceptable salt thereof as a sole active ingredient
`