throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`————————————————
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`————————————————
`Case IPR2022-01105
`Patent No. 9,925,231
`————————————————
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,925,231
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`VI.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Rule 42.8 Notices ............................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 4
`III. Certifications .................................................................................................... 5
`IV. Overview of Challenges; Precise Relief Requested ........................................ 5
`V.
`The ’231 Patent ................................................................................................ 7
`A.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 9
`B.
`Priority Date ........................................................................................ 10
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 11
`D.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 13
`Prior Art Summary ........................................................................................ 13
`A.
`Technical Background ......................................................................... 13
`B.
`Asserted References ............................................................................ 17
`1.
`Shailubhai .................................................................................. 17
`2.
`Remington ................................................................................. 18
`3.
`Mihranyan ................................................................................. 19
`4.
`Aulton ........................................................................................ 19
`5.
`The 2009 Abstract ..................................................................... 19
`6.
`Doelker ...................................................................................... 20
`7.
`Zimmer ...................................................................................... 20
`VII. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 4-12 Were Obvious Over Shailubhai,
`Remington, and Mihranyan ........................................................................... 21
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 21
`1.
`Element 1.[a] ............................................................................. 21
`2.
`Element 1.[b] ............................................................................. 24
`-i-
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`Element 1.[c] ............................................................................. 26
`Element 1.[d] ............................................................................. 27
`Reason to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ...................................................................................... 30
`Conclusion ................................................................................ 33
`6.
`Dependent Claims 2 and 5 .................................................................. 33
`1.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 33
`2.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 34
`Dependent Claims 4 and 6-7 ............................................................... 35
`1.
`Claims 4 and 6 ........................................................................... 35
`2.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 36
`Dependent Claims 8-9 ......................................................................... 38
`Dependent Claims 10-12 ..................................................................... 39
`1.
`Claims 10-11 ............................................................................. 39
`2.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 41
`VIII. Ground 2: Claim 3 Was Obvious Over Shailubhai, Remington,
`Mihranyan, and AULTON ............................................................................ 42
`IX. Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-12 Were Obvious Over 2009
`Abstract and Doelker ..................................................................................... 43
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 44
`1.
`Element 1.[a] ............................................................................. 44
`2.
`Element 1.[b] ............................................................................. 46
`3.
`Element 1.[c] ............................................................................. 47
`4.
`Element 1.[d] ............................................................................. 48
`5.
`Reason to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ...................................................................................... 51
`Conclusion ................................................................................ 54
`6.
`Dependent Claims 2 and 5 .................................................................. 54
`1.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 54
`
`D.
`E.
`
`B.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 55
`2.
`Dependent Claims 4 and 6 .................................................................. 56
`Dependent Claims 8-9 ......................................................................... 56
`Dependent Claims 10-12 ..................................................................... 58
`1.
`Claims 10-11 ............................................................................. 58
`2.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 59
`Ground 4: Claim 3 Was Obvious Over the 2009 Abstract, Doelker,
`and Aulton ..................................................................................................... 60
`XI. Ground 5: Claim 7 Was Obvious Over the 2009 Abstract, Doelker,
`and Zimmer .................................................................................................... 61
`XII. No Secondary Considerations ....................................................................... 62
`XIII. Discretionary Denial is Unwarranted ............................................................ 67
`XIV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 70
`
`X.
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Adapt Pharma Ops. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 25 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir.
`Feb. 10, 2022) .....................................................................................................66
`Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............. 28, 49
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`Paper 8 (PTAB 2017) .........................................................................................68
`ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ........................................................................................................... passim
`Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322, 1329-30 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 27, 49
`In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................66
`In re Lohr, 317 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1963) ...................................................................66
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................. 21, 33, 43, 54
`Scientific Design Co., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., IPR2022-00159, Paper 7
`(PTAB Apr. 4, 2022) ..........................................................................................68
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) ............................................................................................................ 28, 49
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .....................65
`Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AS, IPR2021-01236, Paper 16
`(PTAB Jan. 19, 2022) .........................................................................................68
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 .............................................................................................. 6, 33, 54
`35 U.S.C. §316(b) .....................................................................................................70
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) ....................................................................................................69
`
`Regulations
`
`37 CFR §42.100(b) ...................................................................................................13
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,925,231 (“’231 patent,” EX1001), currently assigned to
`
`Bausch Health Ireland Limited (“Bausch”1), claims an oral-dosage formulation
`
`consisting of a known peptide (“plecanatide”), an “inert low moisture carrier,” and
`
`a lubricant, with stability limitations intrinsic to the composition.
`
`This petition relies both on references never before the examiner and
`
`references lost among hundreds in an IDS and never applied in a rejection. See
`
`§XIII. This prior art teaches a direct-compression tablet was one simple,
`
`conventional, solid oral-dosage form, commonly consisting of an active ingredient,
`
`an inert carrier (often microcrystalline cellulose (MCC)), and a lubricant (often
`
`magnesium stearate). It also taught peptides were susceptible to moisture-induced
`
`degradation, which a low-moisture inert carrier could successfully counteract.
`
`Thus, the challenged claims cover a simple, conventional solid oral-dosage form of
`
`prior-art plecanatide, and recite intrinsic stability properties of this conventional
`
`composition. This subject matter was obvious to a person of ordinary skill over the
`
`prior art.
`
`The challenged claims issued in error, at least partly because Bausch
`
`misleadingly claimed unexpected results. During prosecution of a parent
`
`1 For simplicity, references to Bausch include its predecessors in interest.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`application reciting similar claim limitations, Bausch alleged an unexpected
`
`discovery—the plecanatide peptide was “dramatic[ally]” more stable in storage
`
`(30-34%) when formulated with a low-moisture carrier than with a higher-moisture
`
`carrier. E.g., EX1022, 0369-86. Bausch further limited the claims to exclude other
`
`known peptide-stabilizing excipients to contend it was unexpected for a peptide to
`
`exhibit the observed level of stability absent those additional stabilizing excipients.
`
`The examiner allowed narrower claims after Bausch again submitted its purported
`
`“evidence” of unexpected results. The examiner allowed the challenged claims
`
`without any substantive evaluation (beyond requiring a terminal disclaimer). But
`
`the evidence presented below demonstrates Bausch’s unexpected-results arguments
`
`are a mirage based on misleading data.
`
`Bausch’s characterization of its plecanatide stability data was materially
`
`misleading. What Bausch called a “dramatic” 30-34% reduction in degradation
`
`when using a low-moisture carrier was, in fact, largely the result of a pre-existing
`
`difference in the purity of the plecanatide the patentee chose to use in the
`
`underlying experiments. In absolute terms, impurities in the two compared groups
`
`began at about 1.3% and 2.1%, respectively (a 39% difference). EX1022, 0385.
`
`Even when stored at high temperatures over six months, the difference in impurity
`
`amounts fluctuated somewhat over time but the purported “dramatic” 30-34%
`
`reduction in degradation over time never exceeded the 39% baseline difference in
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`the respective purities of the starting materials when the experiments began. Put
`
`simply, Bausch made something out of nothing and misdirected the examiner.
`
`Nor is increased stability of a peptide an unexpected result of using a low-
`
`moisture carrier. It is precisely why the prior art used low-moisture carriers: to
`
`avoid the same well-known, moisture-induced peptide degradation pathways. In
`
`the proper context—detailed below—a skilled artisan would have fully expected
`
`Bausch’s results, which represent at most a difference in degree, not in kind.
`
`Plecanatide’s stability properties were known, and claiming a prior-art compound’s
`
`intrinsic physical properties cannot justify extending a patent monopoly.
`
`Not only is this a problem on an individual patent basis, but Bausch created
`
`a patent thicket, with multiple patents featuring patentably-indistinct claims issued
`
`on the same erroneous bases. Petitions are thus being contemporaneously filed for
`
`inter partes review of four nearly-identical patents that never should have issued.
`
`Review should be instituted in each case to cancel the challenged claims.
`
`II.
`
`RULE 42.8 NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) is a co-defendant with
`
`Mylan Laboratories Ltd., Mylan Inc., and Viatris Inc. in parallel litigation.
`
`Although Agila Specialties Inc. and Mylan API US LLC were also named as
`
`defendants in the administratively-closed Western District of Pennsylvania
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`litigation (see below), they are not real parties-in-interest. They were dismissed
`
`from the case now in the Northern District of West Virginia and were the subject
`
`of a motion to dismiss when the Pennsylvania case was administratively closed.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd., IPR2022-00722
`
`(PTAB); and Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Laboratories Ltd., 1-22-cv-
`
`00020 (NDWV); 2-21-cv-00573 (WDPA (administratively closed)); and Bausch
`
`Health Ireland Ltd. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 2-21-cv-10057 (DNJ).
`
`IPR2022-01102, IPR2022-01103, and IPR2022-01104 involve patents
`
`closely related to the challenged patent.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead:
`Jad Mills, Reg. No. 63,344.
`
`First Backup:
`
`Richard Torczon, Reg. No. 34,448.
`
`Backup:
`
`
`
`Nicole Stafford, Reg. No. 43,929;
`
`Dennis Gregory, Reg. No. 52,967.
`
`Postal Address:
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100, Seattle, WA 98104-7036.
`
`Telephone:
`
`206-883-2554.
`
`Facsimile:
`
`
`
`206-883-2699.
`
`Please direct all correspondence to the contact information above. Mylan consents
`
`to electronic-mail service at:
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`jmills@wsgr.com,
`
`rtorczon@wsgr.com,
`
`nstafford@wsgr.com,
`
`dgregory@wsgr.com, and
`
`4893-5882-6770@mail.vault.netdocuments.com.
`
`III. CERTIFICATIONS
`
`Mylan certifies the ’231 patent is available for review. Mylan is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting review on these grounds.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES; PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Mylan seeks cancellation of claims 1-12 for the reasons stated below,
`
`supported with exhibits, including declarations from Drs. Graham Buckton and
`
`Uwe Christians. EX1002, ¶¶11-16; EX1003; EX1004, ¶¶10-14; EX1033.
`
`The claims are unpatentable on these grounds:
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1-2, 4-12
`
`3
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Obviousness (§103)2
`
`Shailubhai,3 Remington,4 and Mihranyan5
`
`Shailubhai, Remington, Mihranyan, and
`
`Aulton6
`
`1-2, 4-6, 8-12
`
`2009 Abstract7 and Doelker8
`
`2 All statutory references are to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. unless otherwise indicated.
`
`3 K. Shailubhai et al., Guanylate Cyclase Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of
`
`Tissue Inflammation and Carcinogenesis, U.S. Patent No. 7,041,786 (2006)
`
`(“Shailubhai,” EX1005).
`
`4 E. Rudnic, Chapter 45: Oral Solid Dosage Forms, REMINGTON: THE SCIENCE
`
`AND PRACTICE OF PHARMACY, 21st ed., 2005 (“Remington,” EX1006).
`
`5 A. Mihranyan et al., Moisture Sorption by Cellulose Powders of Varying
`
`Crystallinity, INT. J. PHARM., 269(2), 433-442 (2004) (“Mihranyan,” EX1007).
`
`6 M. Aulton, Pharmaceutics: The Science of Dosage Form Design, 2nd ed. (2001)
`
`(“Aulton,” EX1029).
`
`7 K. Shailubhai et al., SP-304 to Treat GI Disorders – Effects of a Single, Oral-
`
`Dose of SP-304 on Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
`
`in Healthy Volunteers, GASTROENTEROL., 136(5), A641, Abstract W1041 (2009)
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`4
`
`5
`
`3
`
`7
`
`2009 Abstract, Doelker, and Aulton
`
`2009 Abstract, Doelker, and Zimmer9
`
`V.
`
`THE ’231 PATENT
`
`The ’231 patent is entitled “Formulations of Guanylate Cyclase C Agonists
`
`and Methods of Use.” EX1001, Title. It states “[t]he invention provides low-dose
`
`formulations of guanylate cyclase-C (‘GCC’) agonist peptides and methods for
`
`their use.” EX1001, Abstract. The ’231 patent admits GCC-agonist peptides,
`
`including SEQ ID NO:1 (also “SP-304” and “plecanatide”), and methods for
`
`making them, were known in the prior art. EX1001, 3:59-65, 21:62-22:4, 25:58-66,
`
`27:18-28:40, 29:7-30:62; EX1002, ¶¶26-31. The ’231 patent also acknowledges
`
`GCC-agonist peptides’ mechanism of action was known. EX1001, 2:40-45; see
`
`also EX1004, ¶¶24-26. Although the ’231 patent’s claims do not recite any dosage
`
`(“2009 Abstract,” EX1009).
`
`8 E. Doelker et al., Morphological, Packing, Flow and Tableting Properties of New
`
`Avicel Types, DRUG DEV. IND. PHARM., 21(6), 643-661 (1995) (“Doelker,”
`
`EX1010).
`
`9 D. Zimmer et al., Methods and Compositions for the Treatment of Heart Failure
`
`and Other Disorders, WO 2008/106429 (2008) (“Zimmer,” EX1011).
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`amounts, the specification asserts the “invention is also based in part on the
`
`discovery that very low doses of the GCC agonist peptides described herein are
`
`effective for the treatment of diseases and disorders in humans.” EX1001, 7:30-33;
`
`EX1004, ¶¶24-26; EX1002, ¶¶32-33.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites an oral-dosage formulation of a GCC-agonist
`
`peptide consisting of plecanatide, an inert low-moisture carrier, and a lubricant.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “the peptide has a chromatographic purity of no less than
`
`91% after storage for at least three months.” EX1002, ¶¶34-36, 50; EX1004, ¶¶27-
`
`28.
`
`The ’231 patent does not disclose any new process to achieve or maintain a
`
`chromatographic purity of 91% after three months of storage. The specification
`
`does not even provide stability data for any formulation with the claimed low-
`
`moisture carrier. Instead, the specification merely provides data for a plecanatide
`
`formulation using Avicel PH102 in combination with a well-known lubricant
`
`(magnesium stearate). EX1001, 109:7-112:67, Example 11 (capsule; batch 1528-
`
`2850-RD), Example 12 (tablet; batch 1528-2850B-RD). Yet Bausch disclaimed
`
`Avicel PH102 from the claimed low-moisture carrier during prosecution of the
`
`parent application. EX1022, 0382-86. Based on these experiments—using a
`
`formulation expressly outside the scope of its claims—the ’231 patent reports
`
`plecanatide’s “product stability in terms of HPLC or UPLC of total impurities as a
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`function of time and storage condition.” EX1001, 109:1-3. That is, the ’231 patent
`
`identifies storage stability as an intrinsic physical property of the composition. As
`
`Dr. Buckton testifies, storage stability is an expected result of formulating
`
`plecanatide in this conventional manner, and at least as much storage stability (or
`
`more) would have been expected using other conventional inert carriers, especially
`
`lower-moisture inert carriers (e.g., Avicel PH112). EX1002, ¶¶127-131, 223-226;
`
`see also EX1022, 0382-86 (asserting Avicel PH112 formulation is more stable
`
`than Avicel PH102 formulation). The remaining claims 2-12 also do not
`
`meaningfully distinguish the asserted art. EX1002, ¶¶37-40; EX1004, ¶¶29-30.
`
`Prosecution History
`A.
`The ’231 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/421,769,
`
`which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,616,097. During the ’097 patent’s examination,
`
`Bausch alleged an unexpected discovery—that plecanatide was “dramatic[ally]”
`
`more stable in storage (30-34%) when formulated with a low-moisture carrier than
`
`with a higher-moisture carrier. E.g., EX1022, 0369-86. Bausch further limited the
`
`claims to exclude other known peptide-stabilizing excipients and contended it was
`
`unexpected for a peptide to exhibit the observed stability without these additional
`
`stabilizing excipients. EX1022, 4973-77. The examiner allowed the ’097 patent
`
`claims after Bausch again submitted its purported “evidence” of unexpected
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`results. Id., 5079-89 (Applicants’ Remarks), 5090-94 (1.132 Declaration), 5098
`
`(Notice of Allowance).
`
`The examiner allowed the challenged claims without any prior-art rejection.
`
`See EX1023. Bausch merely had to file a terminal disclaimer. See EX1023, 0231-
`
`32 (terminal disclaimer), 0239-47 (Notice of Allowance), 0590-97 (Notice of
`
`Allowance); EX1002, ¶56. This petition provides new evidence and new
`
`arguments demonstrating the challenged claims never should have issued. See
`
`§XIII, below.
`
`B. Priority Date
`The ’231 patent claims priority via a 2011 PCT application to three
`
`provisional applications filed in 2010. EX1001, cover; EX1025; EX1026; EX1027.
`
`During prosecution of a related application, however, the examiner noted that
`
`“none of the provisional applications…disclosed the amended claim 45.” EX1022,
`
`4990. The examiner concluded that, because the provisional patent applications did
`
`not disclose the 91% chromatographic-purity limitation, the “date of this
`
`application is the effective filing date of PCT/US2011/0151805 (9/15/2011),”
`
`which is September 15, 2011. Id. The examiner made a similar comment in a
`
`second related application, the priority date of which “would also be changed by
`
`the proposed amendment” that included the 91% chromatographic purity
`
`limitation. EX1021, 0440-41; see also id., 0409-14 (amendment); EX1002, ¶¶51-
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`55. The ’231 patent thus has an effective filing date no earlier than September 15,
`
`2011.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Obviousness is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (POSA), who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art and possess
`
`common sense and ordinary creativity in the pertinent field. The challenged claims
`
`are directed to an oral-dosage formulation. By September 15, 2011, a POSA had
`
`the equivalent of a graduate degree in pharmaceutics or a related field, and
`
`knowledge and experience making oral-dosage formulations. EX1002, ¶¶81-84.
`
`This individual could work with other specialists including, e.g., an M.D., clinical
`
`pharmacologist, and medicinal chemist. Id. This petition cites references, including
`
`background art, that further demonstrate a POSA’s knowledge and abilities. Id.;
`
`EX1004, ¶¶37, 39-40.
`
`Two eminently-qualified experts testify in support of this petition. Dr.
`
`Buckton is an Emeritus Professor of Pharmaceutics in the UCL School of
`
`Pharmacy of the University of London and was well-versed in formulating active
`
`pharmaceutical ingredients for oral administration at the relevant time. EX1002,
`
`¶¶1-10; EX1003. Dr. Buckton received his Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics from King’s
`
`College, University of London in 1985. Dr. Buckton’s work as a formulator in
`
`industry and in academia spanned 1988 to 2015 and focused on pharmaceutical
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`formulation development, including materials characterization, pre-formulation,
`
`assay development, clinical trials, and manufacturing. His formulation projects
`
`have been funded by private industry (e.g., Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK, and
`
`Novartis) as well as government grants (e.g., Engineering and Physical Sciences
`
`Research Council). He publishes frequently about formulation in respected
`
`academic and industry journals, including Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, the
`
`International Journal of Pharmaceutics, and the European Journal of
`
`Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. Because of his significant contributions, Dr.
`
`Buckton has received numerous awards and honors, including the Pfizer Award for
`
`Excellence in Published Research, the Stig Sunner Award, and the Academy of
`
`Pharmaceutical Sciences Medal. Dr. Buckton is well qualified to testify regarding a
`
`POSA’s understanding and knowledge at the relevant time. EX1002, ¶¶83-84.
`
`Dr. Buckton’s testimony is further supported by the testimony of Dr.
`
`Christians, who is an M.D./Ph.D. and Professor of Medicine at the University of
`
`Colorado Health Sciences Center with experience in clinical pharmacology and
`
`toxicology. Dr. Christians has extensive experience designing and conducting
`
`clinical trials. EX1004, ¶¶1-9. Dr. Christians also has direct experience with
`
`uroguanylin peptides. Id., ¶5; EX1033. Dr. Christians is well qualified to testify
`
`based on his knowledge, training and experience regarding a POSA’s
`
`understanding and knowledge at the relevant time. EX1004, ¶¶1-9.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`D. Claim Construction
`This petition applies the ordinary and customary meaning of the claims as
`
`POSAs understood them, consistent with the specification. 37 CFR §42.100(b);
`
`EX1002, ¶85; EX1004, ¶41. The claims do not require any constructions to apply the
`
`grounds.
`
`The term “inert low moisture carrier” appears in independent claim 1. The
`
`’231 patent expressly identifies Avicel PH112, an MCC-based carrier, as a “low
`
`moisture” carrier. EX1001, 9:37-40, 94:17-35. During a parent application’s
`
`examination, Bausch distinguished Avicel PH102 as a “regular grade carrier” as
`
`compared to “low-moisture” Avicel PH112. EX1022, 0382-86. Construction of
`
`“inert low moisture carrier” is unnecessary for this petition because a POSA would
`
`have understood the claims to include at least Avicel PH112 as a prior-art “inert
`
`low moisture carrier.” EX1002, ¶¶86-88.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART SUMMARY
`
`Technical Background
`A.
`Plecanatide is the 16-amino acid peptide sequence:
`
`Asn1-Asp2-Glu3-Cys4-Glu5-Leu6-Cys7-Val8-Asn9-Val10-Ala11-Cys12-Thr13-Gly14-Cys15-Leu16
`
`EX1005, 5:4-16, 15:56-58; EX1002, ¶89; EX1004, ¶42.
`
`Before the critical date, plecanatide’s stability was well publicized. The prior
`
`art touted plecanatide’s “temperature and protease stability,” and its “biological
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`activity at the physiologically favorable pH range (pH 6 to 7) in the large
`
`intestine.” EX1005, 5:16-23; see also EX1017, 1 (plecanatide “primarily exists in a
`
`single bioactive conformation”); EX1004, ¶45; EX1002, ¶90.
`
`Plecanatide was also known at the time to be a guanylate cyclase-C (GCC)
`
`agonist with anti-inflammatory effects useful for treating gastrointestinal (GI)
`
`disorders. EX1028, 73, 78; EX1002, ¶¶91-92, 105-107; EX1004, ¶¶44-48. As an
`
`agonist, when plecanatide binds to its receptor (GCC), its activity plateaus once the
`
`receptor is saturated. EX1004, ¶156. Dose increases above saturation will not
`
`provide additional therapeutic effects, but might increase adverse effects. Id.
`
`Consequently, low doses of agonists are conventional. Id. POSAs also knew
`
`plecanatide “can be given orally, and is not systemically absorbed…, which means
`
`that the compound is likely to be very safe in clinical use.” EX1017, 1.
`
`POSAs further regarded plecanatide as a “small molecule.” EX1028, 78.
`
`Well before the critical date, POSAs knew conventional methods of formulating
`
`small molecules. EX1002, ¶¶92-97; see generally EX1006. “Although the
`
`differences in the physical and chemical properties between synthetic (small)
`
`molecules and protein biologics (peptide, antibodies, and recombinant proteins) are
`
`significant, the basic approach taken by the pharmaceutical scientist in formulating
`
`and delivery ha[d] become remarkably similar.” EX1020 (the “Protein
`
`Handbook”), 328; id., 330, 333.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Skilled artisans further understood that “[w]hen the time comes to formulate
`
`either a biologic or a small molecule, the age-old rule of developing the simplest
`
`formulation possible should prevail. Excipients used should be justified with a
`
`reason for their inclusion.” EX1020, 331; EX1002, ¶94.
`
`Well before the critical date, POSAs knew “[t]ablets are the most widely
`
`used dosage form.” EX1029, 248. POSAs also understood “tablets can usually be
`
`prepared by direct compression,” where the active pharmaceutical ingredient is
`
`compressed with excipients. EX1029, 134; EX1002, ¶¶95-99. A 2008 published
`
`application, for example, teaches formulating peptides as direct-compression
`
`tablets in which the active drug ingredients is “mixed with a solid, pulverant carrier
`
`such as…cellulose derivatives or gelatin, and mixtures thereof, as well as with an
`
`antifriction agent such as, for example, magnesium stearate[.]” EX1030, ¶167;
`
`EX1002, ¶98. Aulton, a well-known pharmaceutical-reference text, similarly
`
`teaches making compressed tablets consisting of (i) the active drug, (ii) a filler
`
`(i.e., inert carrier); (iii) a lubricant/glidant; and, if necessary, a solubilizer. EX1029,
`
`302-03; EX1002, ¶99. Thus, POSAs knew to formulate small molecules, including
`
`peptides, in direct-compression tablets consisting of the peptide, a carrier, and a
`
`lubricant.
`
`Aulton teaches MCC as a conventional filler for tablets:
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`EX1029, 136, Table 8.16, 302; see also EX1006, 891, 902-03; EX1002, ¶100;
`
`EX1001, 11:54-57 (carriers “also referred to as diluents”). POSAs knew MCC
`
`further provides “some lubricant and disintegrant properties that make it useful in
`
`tableting.” EX1008, 130; see also EX1006, 903; EX1002, ¶101. Thus, POSAs
`
`recognized MCC as a highly-preferred inert carrier for direct-compression tablets.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶100-101.
`
`POSAs also routinely used low-moisture MCC for moisture-sensitive
`
`materials. The Excipients Handbook teaches “[s]everal different grades of
`
`microcrystalline cellulose are commercially available” and “[l]ow-moisture grades
`
`are used with moisture-sensitive materials.” EX1008, 132; see also EX1007, 433
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`(teaching low-moisture Avicel PH112 for formulating moisture-sensitive
`
`materials). Peptides were generally understood to be susceptible to water-induced
`
`degradation. EX1016, 489. Thus, POSAs recognized low-moisture MCC as a
`
`preferred inert carrier for direct-compression tableting of peptides. EX1002, ¶¶102,
`
`104.
`
`Lubricants had known utility for formulating direct-compression tablets by
`
`“prevent[ing] adhesion of the tablet material to the surface of the dies and punches,
`
`reduc[ing] interparticle friction,” and “facilitat[ing] the ejection of the tablets from
`
`the die cavity.” EX1006, 892; EX1002, ¶103. Magnesium stearate was a
`
`conventional lubricant for direct-compression tableting. EX1029, 136 (identifying
`
`magnesium stearate as a preferred lubricant); EX1006, 892-93 (“magnesium
`
`stearate is one of the most widely used lubricants”); EX1008, 404; EX1002, ¶103.
`
`Asserted References
`B.
`The claims take a simple, conventional, and well-known tablet formulation
`
`and apply it to prior-art plecanatide. The discussion below summarizes certain
`
`prior-art publications illustrating the obviousness of each challenged claim.
`
`1.
`
`Shailubhai
`
`Shailubhai10 is a 2006 patent disclosing plecanatide. EX1005, 5:4-12;
`
`10 Shailubhai is prior art under at least §102(b).
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`EX1002, ¶¶108-109. Shailubhai also discloses plecanatide’s pharmacological
`
`effect of increasing potassium and calcium ion influx and water transport into the
`
`GI tract. EX1005, 6:4-32, 15:25-17:5; EX1004, ¶43.
`
`Shailubhai teaches plecanatide “may be combined or formulated with
`
`various excipients” to make tablets, that plecanatide tablets “may be made using
`
`methods well known in the art” (citing well-known reference text Remington), and
`
`that the “selection of carriers” and “components suitable for use in compositions is
`
`well within the level of skill in this art.” EX1005, 13:18-52; EX1002, ¶110.
`
`2.
`
`Remington
`
`Remington11 is the 21st edition (published in 2005) of a well-known,
`
`foundational reference text teaching the popularity of direct-compression tablets,
`
`which enable fewer ex

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket