`U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`AND DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708 to Cypes et al.
`Issue Date: February 5, 2008
`Title: Phosphoric acid salt of a dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01060
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH M. FORTUNAK, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 001
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MY EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 3
`
`III. LIST OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................... 11
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................... 13
`
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................... 13
`
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................... 14
`
`V. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 18
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY
`SKILL IN THE ART (“POSA”) ................................................................... 18
`
`VII. THE ’708 PATENT ........................................................................................ 20
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 25
`
`IX. ANTICIPATION ............................................................................................ 27
`
`A. Ground 1: WO 03/004498 Anticipates
`Claims 1-3, 17, 19, And 21-23 Of The ’708 Patent .......................... 27
`1.
`Disclosure Of WO ’498 ............................................................ 27
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 1 Of The ’708 Patent ...................................................... 37
`
`Claim 2 Of The ’708 Patent ...................................................... 41
`
`Claim 3 Of The ’708 Patent ...................................................... 41
`
`Claim 17 Of The ’708 Patent .................................................... 42
`i
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 002
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`aa..
`
`A pharmaceutical composition comprising .................... 42
`
`bb..
`
`cc..
`
`a therapeutically effective amount of the salt
`according to claim 2 ........................................................ 42
`
`in association with one or more
`pharmaceutically acceptable carriers .............................. 43
`
`6.
`
`Claim 19 Of The ’708 Patent .................................................... 43
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`A method for the treatment of type 2
`diabetes comprising ........................................................ 44
`
`administering to a patient in need of such
`treatment a therapeutically effective amount
`of the salt according to claim 2 or a hydrate
`thereof ............................................................................. 44
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 21-22 Of The ’708 Patent ............................................. 44
`
`Claim 23 Of The ’708 Patent .................................................... 46
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 17, 19, And 22-23
`Are Anticipated By The ’871 Patent .................................................. 47
`1.
`Disclosure Of The ’871 Patent .................................................. 47
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1 And 2 ......................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 49
`
`Claims 17 And 19 ..................................................................... 50
`
`Claim 21 .................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`ii
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 003
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`X. OBVIOUSNESS ................................................................................................ 54
`
`A. Ground 3: Claims 3, 17, 19, And 21-23 Would
`Have Been Obvious In View of WO ’498 .......................................... 55
`1.
`The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Pertinent Art .................... 55
`
`2.
`
`The Scope And Content Of
`The Prior Art: WO ’498 (EX1004) ........................................... 55
`
`aa..
`
`bb..
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................ 55
`
`Claim 17 .......................................................................... 56
`
`ii..
`
`iiii..
`
`iiiiii..
`
`“A pharmaceutical composition comprising” ...... 56
`
`“A therapeutically effective amount of
`the salt according to claim 2” .............................. 57
`
`“In association with one or more
`pharmaceutically acceptable carriers” .................. 57
`
`cc..
`
`Claim 19 .......................................................................... 58
`
`ii..
`
`iiii..
`
`“A method for the treatment of type 2
`diabetes comprising” ............................................ 58
`
`“administering to a patient in need of such
`treatment a therapeutically effective amount
`of the salt according to claim 2 or a hydrate
`thereof” ................................................................. 58
`
`dd..
`
`ee..
`
`ff..
`
`Claim 21 .......................................................................... 58
`
`Claim 22 .......................................................................... 60
`
`Claim 23 .......................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 004
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`B. Ground 4: Claims 1-3, 17, 19, And 21-23 Would Have
`Been Obvious In View Of WO ’498 And Bastin ................................ 60
`1.
`The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Pertinent Art .................... 60
`
`2.
`
`The Scope And Content Of The Prior Art ................................ 60
`
`aa.. WO ’498 (EX1004) ........................................................ 60
`
`bb..
`
`Bastin (EX1006) ............................................................. 61
`
`3.
`
`The Differences Between
`The Claims And Prior Art ......................................................... 62
`
`aa..
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ 62
`
`ii.. WO ’498 And Bastin Would Have
`Rendered The Phosphoric Acid Salt
`Obvious ................................................................ 63
`
`Claims 2 And 3 ............................................................... 67
`
`Claims 17 And 19 ........................................................... 68
`
`Claims 21-23 ................................................................... 69
`
`bb..
`
`cc..
`
`dd..
`
`C. Ground 5: Claim 4 Would Have Been
`Obvious In View Of WO ’498, Bastin, and Brittain ............................ 70
`1.
`The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Pertinent Art .................... 70
`
`2.
`
`The Scope And Content Of The Prior Art ................................ 70
`
`a. WO ’498 (EX1004) And
`Bastin (EX1006) ............................................................. 70
`
`b.
`
`Brittain (EX1005) ........................................................... 70
`
`3.
`
`The Differences Between The Claim And Prior Art ................ 72
`iv
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 005
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`aa..
`
`Claim 4 ............................................................................ 72
`
`D. Ground 6: Claim 4 Would Have Been
`Obvious In View Of WO ’498 And Brittain ........................................ 73
`1.
`The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Pertinent Art .................... 73
`
`2.
`
`The Scope And Content Of The Prior Art ................................ 73
`
`aa.. WO ’498 (EX1004) And
`Brittain (EX1005) ........................................................... 73
`
`3.
`
`The Differences Between The Claim And Prior Art ................ 73
`
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 75
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 006
`
`
`
`I, JOSEPH M. FORTUNAK Ph.D., do hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked to provide testimony as to what one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood with respect to the patent at issue and various prior
`
`art discussed herein. I provide this testimony below:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`2.
`I am over the age of 18 and otherwise competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Petitioners Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories,
`
`Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. for the above-captioned inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”). I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR
`
`at my standard consulting rate, which is $650 per hour. My compensation does not
`
`depend in any way on the outcome of the IPR.
`
`4.
`
`It is my understanding that the Petition for Inter Partes Review in this
`
`matter (the “Petition”) involves U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708 (“the ’708 Patent”)
`
`(EX1001).
`
`5.
`
`The ’708 Patent names Stephen Howard Cypes, Alex Minhua Chen,
`
`Russell R. Ferlita, Karl Hansen, Ivan Lee, Vicky K. Vydra, and Robert M. Wenslow,
`
`Jr. as the purported inventors.
`
`6.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been told to assume the
`
`relevant priority date of the ’708 Patent is June 24, 2003—the filing date of U.S.
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 007
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/482,161.1 I further understand that the ’708 Patent
`
`is assigned to Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (“Merck,” “Patentee,” or “Patent
`
`Owner”).
`
`7.
`
`As explained below, it is my opinion that claims 1-4, 17, 19, and 21-23
`
`of the ’708 Patent2 are anticipated or would have been obvious to the skilled
`
`artisan as of the time of the priority date of the ’708 Patent. Therefore, these
`
`claims are invalid.
`
`
`1 I have not been asked to analyze whether this is indeed the correct priority date
`
`but rather assume that it is for the purposes of my declaration. I understand that
`
`Patent Owner has recently contended that the priority date is earlier than June 24,
`
`2003. (EX1015 Interrog. 10.) I express no opinion at this time as to whether
`
`June 24, 2003 is, in fact, the correct priority date. However, should this become an
`
`issue during the proceeding, I may be called upon to offer my opinion.
`
`2 I have not been asked to express an opinion about any other claim of the
`
`’708 Patent, nor do I express such opinion because I have not undertaken such an
`
`analysis.
`
`
`
`2
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 008
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`II. MY EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS3
`8.
`I am a Professor of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences at
`
`Howard University, in Washington, DC, where I regularly teach courses in
`
`Organic Chemistry to undergraduate students. I also teach courses in drug
`
`discovery, drug development, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences,
`
`and green chemistry/chemical synthesis to PharmD and PhD students in Chemistry
`
`and Pharmacy. I am an expert in the field of medicinal chemistry, and I have been
`
`an expert in this field since well before June 24, 2003. Throughout my career, I
`
`have discovered drugs and provided synthetic chemistry and pharmaceutical drug
`
`development expertise
`
`in both academic
`
`laboratories and pharmaceutical
`
`companies. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge,
`
`and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my current curriculum vitae is
`
`attached to this Declaration as EX1018 and it provides a description of my
`
`academic and employment history.4
`
`
`3 I reserve the right to explain my background and qualifications during any
`
`deposition or in any subsequent Reply.
`
`4 I reserve the right to supplement my academic and employment history
`
`during any subsequent deposition.
`
`
`
`3
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 009
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`As an expert in the relevant field since prior to June 24, 2003, I am
`
`qualified to provide an opinion as to what a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`(“POSA” or “the skilled artisan”) would have understood, known, or concluded as
`
`of June 24, 2003. Indeed, since 1976, I have accumulated significant training and
`
`experience in the fields of medicinal chemistry/drug discovery and design, drug
`
`development, drug regulation, solid-state chemistry (i.e. crystalline forms,
`
`polymorphs, solvates, hydrates and amorphous forms), enzyme interactions
`
`(including the design of enzyme inhibitors), pharmacology, pre-formulation and
`
`formulation design, and organic and process chemistry.
`
`10.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Purdue
`
`University in 1976, and my Doctorate in Philosophy in Organic Chemistry from
`
`the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. After earning my Ph.D., I was a
`
`postdoctoral fellow and a research assistant professor at Cambridge University in
`
`the United Kingdom from 1981-1983.
`
`11. My career has spanned both the industrial and academic sectors,
`
`including senior managerial and academic appointments.
`
`12. From 1983-1993, I worked at SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceutical
`
`Corp., and served as Associate Senior Research Investigator, Senior Research
`
`Investigator and Assistant Director. During that time, I was primarily responsible
`4
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 010
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`for inventing processes to synthesize active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”)
`
`for investigational new drugs, including the drugs halofantrine, ropinerole,
`
`topotecan, and eprosartan, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)
`
`has approved.
`
`13. From 1993-2000, I worked at DuPont Pharmaceutical Company
`
`(“DuPont”), and served as Associate Director, Director, Senior Director and
`
`Executive Director. During my tenure at DuPont, among other responsibilities, I
`
`led the API development team for the major anti-HIV drug efavirenz, which is an
`
`inhibitor of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. I was also responsible for building a
`
`pre-formulations group of experts in organic, solid-state chemistry, and for
`
`managing the interface(s) between the API, Formulations, and Analytical groups at
`
`DuPont.
`
`14. From 1993-1999 I also served on the Scientific Advisory Board for
`
`NaPro Biotherapeutics
`
`in Boulder, Colorado, working on a commercial
`
`semi-synthesis of the anti-cancer drug paclitaxcel from renewable biomass.
`
`15. From 2000-2004, I worked at Abbott Laboratories as the Head of
`
`Global Chemical Development. In that position I was responsible for managing
`
`chemistry, engineering, and analytical development for all of Abbott’s new drug
`
`candidates. During that time, I built a Process Engineering Department with
`5
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 011
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`expertise in separation sciences, solids engineering, and process modeling. I also
`
`was responsible for process validation for four New Drug Applications, including
`
`XIENCE™ V drug-device combination (a coronary stent), and emtricitabine, an
`
`anti-HIV drug
`
`that
`
`is a nucleoside reverse
`
`transcriptase
`
`inhibitor. My
`
`responsibilities in this role included oversight for the API and physiochemical pre-
`
`formulation activities for all new drug candidates, route discovery, polymorph
`
`control, clinical supplies, analytical & process development and validation for
`
`Abbott Labs and external customers. I was responsible for manufacturing several
`
`small volume, commercial products for Abbott Labs and external customers.
`
`16.
`
`I have, in the past, served as an industry representative to the
`
`FDA/ICH Q7A Committee on guidelines for active pharmaceutical ingredients. I
`
`have also served as Chair of the Regulatory and Compliance Section for the
`
`Midwest Pharmaceutical Process Chemistry Consortium.
`
`17. While employed as a scientist and manager in the innovator
`
`pharmaceutical industry (1983-2004), I contributed to over 100 new chemical
`
`entities that moved from discovery into development. I also contributed to the
`
`development and approval of twelve new drug applications (“NDAs”) approved
`
`for marketing and a substantial number (approximately 20+) of generic products.
`
`
`
`6
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 012
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I have consulted with a number of pharmaceutical companies on
`
`issues relating
`
`to drug discovery, drug development, API and Finished
`
`Pharmaceutical Product drug development and drug production.
`
`19. From 2004 to the present, as noted above, I have served as a Professor
`
`of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences at Howard University in Washington,
`
`DC. My research group of PhD/PharmD/MSc and undergraduate students develops
`
`new science to decrease the cost of and increase access to quality-assured
`
`medicines for low- and middle-income countries. We have contributed to new
`
`chemistry and technologies that have improved production and reduced cost of
`
`several drugs for HIV/AIDS, Malaria, TB, and opportunistic infections, including
`
`the antiviral (HIV) drugs efavirenz, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, darunavir,
`
`dolutegravir, and atazanavir.
`
`20.
`
`In 2005, I helped found the Drug Access Technical Team of the
`
`William J. Clinton Health Access Initiative where I contributed to increasing
`
`global access to medications of assured quality at affordable prices, including
`
`HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medications.
`
`21.
`
`I presently work with organizations including the World Health
`
`Organization, USAID/USP, UNITAID, and the TB Alliance on novel chemistry,
`
`
`
`7
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 013
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`formulations, and regulatory sciences for manufacturing, market dynamics and
`
`regulation of quality-assured medicines for low- and middle-income countries.
`
`22. Since 2008 I have regularly taught a curriculum in drug discovery,
`
`development, and manufacturing at the St. Luke Foundation/Kilimanjaro School of
`
`Pharmacy (“KSP”) in Moshi, Tanzania, and the School of Pharmacy/Center for
`
`Drug Discovery, Development, and Pharmaceutical Production (CDDDP) at the
`
`University of Ibadan in Nigeria. This curriculum focuses on the science and
`
`practice of drug discovery and development. Participants in this training include
`
`pharmaceutical professionals, national drug regulators, and university professors.
`
`As part of the curriculum, students learn how to formulate drugs, including dosage
`
`form design, granulation, milling, drying, compression, coating, and process
`
`validation. This teaching includes a focus on crystalline forms of pharmaceutical
`
`solids including polymorphs, hydrates, solvates, and amorphous forms and their
`
`impact on APIs and drug products. This curriculum has received numerous awards,
`
`including a 2013 US FDA Honor Award for excellence and innovation in teaching
`
`and drug regulatory sciences.
`
`23.
`
`I also have served or currently serve as an adjunct professor at the
`
`University of Alabama, Green Chemistry Manufacturing Institute, the Kilimanjaro
`
`School of Pharmacy, and the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. I am on the
`8
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 014
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`Scientific Advisory Board of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) as an expert in
`
`Green Chemistry.
`
`24.
`
`I have published over 75 peer-reviewed papers, book chapters, and
`
`monographs. I have made hundreds of presentations in the areas of my expertise. I
`
`am also an inventor on approximately 35 patent applications worldwide in the
`
`areas of chemical synthesis, green chemistry, drug synthesis, and drug
`
`manufacturing. I have managed approximately 800 professionals in the course of
`
`my career, approximately 500 of whom are PhD-level scientists.
`
`25. From 2006-2011, I was on the editorial board of the journal Current
`
`Opinion in Drug Development. I am currently on the editorial boards of the
`
`Journal of Tropical Pharmaceutical Research and the Journal Sustainability:
`
`Chemistry.
`
`26.
`
`I have received several honors and awards for my research and
`
`teaching work. Among many others, I have been awarded the Howard University
`
`Faculty Senate Award for contributions to Africa and the African Diaspora, the
`
`American Chemical Society “Astellas Foundation” Prize for Chemistry Impact on
`
`Human Health, for, among other things, global access to anti-HIV drugs, the
`
`African Union award for Corporate Social Responsibility, and a Corporate Award
`
`
`
`9
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 015
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`from Abbott Labs for manufacturing improvements that reduced volatile organic
`
`emissions (VOEs) over the island of Puerto Rico by over 60%.
`
`27. My research has focused on the study of new synthetic chemistry and
`
`methodology for the manufacture of essential medicines for the treatment of
`
`HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. I also currently work on new technologies
`
`for Green Chemistry, safety and waste reduction. I am also heavily involved in
`
`teaching drug development and industrial pharmacy in Low- and Middle-Income
`
`Countries to enable local production of essential medicines according to
`
`international standards of Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP). Among
`
`other things, I have managed research and development activities in dipeptidyl
`
`peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors, in the areas of drug discovery, candidate
`
`selection, and crystalline forms. Moreover, prior to my involvement with this
`
`declaration, through the literature and my own work and teaching, I am familiar
`
`with the drugs known as sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, and alogliptin, as well
`
`as others spanning the therapeutic spectrum. I have studied these with a view to
`
`alleviating the cardiovascular problems inherent in anti-diabetes drug candidates. I
`
`have also studied all these compounds in combination with statins and
`
`anti-hypertensive drugs.
`
`
`
`10
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 016
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`III. LIST OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In formulating my opinions, I have considered the materials referenced
`28.
`
`in this Declaration and the Exhibit List below. I have also reviewed the
`
`’708 Patent (EX1001) and its prosecution history, as well as each of the documents
`
`cited herein in light of the general knowledge in the state of the art as of June 24,
`
`2003.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 017
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708
`Declaration of Dr. Mukund Chorghade
`CV of Dr. Mukund Chorghade
`WO 03/004498 to Edmonson
`Brittain, “Polymorphism in Pharmaceutical Solids”
`Bastin et al. “Salt Selection and Optimisation [sic] Procedures for
`Pharmaceutical New Chemical Entities”
`U.S. Patent No 6,699,871
`Orange Book Entry for Janumet®
`Orange Book Entry for Januvia®
`Complete copy of the prosecution history of the ’708 Patent as
`available for download from the USPTO website
`U.S. Patent No. 4,572,909
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/303,475, filed July 6, 2001
`Prescribing Information for Janumet®
`Prescribing Information for Januvia®
`Merck Sharpe & Dohme’s Responses and Objections to
`Defendants’ First Set of Joint Interrogatories (1-10)
`Brown et al., Chemistry: The Central Science 615-618 (8th rev. ed.
`2002)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`CV of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`Pet’r Exh. #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`
`
`
`12
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 018
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`29. Although I am not a lawyer, I have been informed by counsel and
`
`provide my general understanding of the law of anticipation and obviousness. I used
`
`these principles in conducting my analysis and drawing any conclusions.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the first step in determining whether a patent claim
`
`would have been anticipated or obvious is to construe the claims to determine claim
`
`scope and meaning. I understand that in IPR proceedings, the claims must generally
`
`be given “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in question at the time of the invention.”
`
`A. Anticipation
`31.
`I understand that anticipation requires that each and every element of
`
`the claimed invention be disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art
`
`reference. I also understand that a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does
`
`not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim. For
`
`example, I understand that an element may be inherent in the prior art where the
`
`prior art necessarily functions in accordance with or includes the claimed limitations.
`
`I am also informed that inherency may exist even if a POSA would not appreciate
`
`or recognize the inherent characteristics of the prior art, as the discovery of a
`
`previously unappreciated property does not make an old composition patentable.
`
`
`
`13
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 019
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`32. Moreover, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed
`
`invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his
`
`own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. In an
`
`anticipation inquiry, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of
`
`the reference but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably be
`
`expected to draw therefrom. It is also my understanding that proof of efficacy is
`
`not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation, or
`
`for that matter, anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a
`
`disclosure. I also understand that a prior art reference must enable a POSA to make
`
`and use a claimed invention in order to anticipate a patent claim, although I
`
`understand that in an IPR, prior art references are presumed to be enabled.
`
`B. Obviousness
`33.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a POSA.
`
`34.
`
`I have been told the following factors (sometimes referred to as the
`
`Graham factors) are used in making an obviousness determination: ( a) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; ( b) the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claimed invention; (c) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (d) any
`14
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 020
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`secondary considerations evidencing nonobviousness. The obviousness analysis
`
`looks to the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.
`
`Moreover, obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success; all that
`
`is required is a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, I have been
`
`informed that the person of ordinary skill need only have a reasonable expectation
`
`of success of developing the claimed invention. Finally, obviousness cannot be
`
`avoided simply by a showing of some degree of unpredictability in the art so long
`
`as there was a reasonable probability of success.
`
`35.
`
`I also understand that obviousness can be established by combining or
`
`modifying the teachings of the prior art. A claimed invention can be obvious when,
`
`for example, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led a POSA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.5
`
`
`5 As a general matter, in my view in science and technology, a POSA would not
`
`view any single disclosure as complete, and thus, look no further. Were that the
`
`case, society would have halted technological progress long ago. Instead, ordinary
`
`artisans always seek improvement in their respective fields, and especially so in
`
`science and technology.
`
`
`
`15
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 021
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`36.
`
`I also understand that the prior art references themselves do not have to
`
`provide an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art
`
`teachings; rather, the analysis may rely on interrelated teachings, market demands,
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a POSA, and/or common sense. Moreover,
`
`the POSA can also take account of the inferences and creative steps that he or she
`
`would employ. Put another way, the motivation to combine or modify prior art
`
`references can come from any reason to do so and is not limited to the reasons that
`
`may have motivated the patentee.
`
`37.
`
`I am also informed that a combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. I also understand that when a POSA would have reached the claimed
`
`invention through routine experimentation, the invention may be deemed obvious.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that various rationales are utilized to determine whether a
`
`claim
`
`is obvious,
`
`including,
`
`among others: (i) simple
`
`substitution or
`
`interchangeability of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
`
`(ii) use of known techniques to improve similar methods or products in the same
`
`way; (iii) applying a known technique to a known method or product ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (iv) “obvious to try”—choosing from a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`16
`
`
`
`DRL Ex. 1017, p. 022
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01060 (U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708)
`Declaration of Joseph M. Fortunak, Ph.D.
`
`
`success; and (v) known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`39. As stated above, I understand that secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness are part of the obviousness inquiry. I understand that these secondary
`
`considerations may include failure of others, copying, unexpectedly superior
`
`results, perception in the industry, commercial success, and long-felt but unmet
`
`need. I also understand that for secondary considerations of non-obviousness to be
`
`applicable, they must have a nexus to the claimed subject matter. I understand that
`
`this nexus (i.e., link) includes a connection between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the alleged secondary considerations.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that I cannot use hindsight in any obviousness analysis. In
`
`connection with my opinions, I did not use hindsight, nor did I use the claims and/or
`
`the disclosure of the ’708 Patent as a blueprint for piecing together the prior art to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention. As part of the obviousness analysis, and to avoid
`
`hindsight, I thought back to the time of invention (i.e., the relevant priority date
`
`(discussed further below)) and considered t