`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`Case IPR2023-00724
`Patent 10,335,462
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE B. JENSEN, M.D., PH.D.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. BRos ssc wer scrresrzce sccmsea ER ICSU4
`Il.
`|My Conception of Treating Type-2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly
`Subcutaneous Administrations of 1.0 mg Semaglutide by March 17, 2010,
`and No Later Than May 28, 2010....0.....00..occccecccececceecceesceeeceeeescecesseeesseesesees 7
`A. March 17, 2010.02.20. cee cececcceccecccecceceecceeceeceeeceeeceeseceeeeeeeeeceseeeeeneeeseesees 10
`
`Bi
`
`bey OR DO ice erence merce comer enereo 14
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`I, Dr. Christine B. Jensen, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`1.
`
`I am the Christine B. Jensen identified as the sole inventor on U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,335,462 (the “’462 Patent”), entitled “Use of Long-Acting GLP-1
`
`1
`Peptides.” EX1001 (’462 Patent), 1.0F
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I am a citizen of Denmark, and I reside in Copenhagen, Denmark.
`
`I understand that the subject matter at issue in the ’462 Patent
`
`encompasses, in part, the following three claims:
`
`1. A method for treating type 2 diabetes, comprising
`administering semaglutide once weekly in an amount
`of 1.0 mg to a subject in need thereof.
`2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the
`semaglutide
`is
`administered
`by
`parenteral
`administration.
`3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the solution
`is administered by subcutaneous injection.
`
`1 All subsequent exhibits cited herein have a single sheet appended before the start
`
`of the cited documents, which I understand identifies the underlying metadata of
`
`each cited document. My statements that I recognize the documents as true and
`
`correct copies, or that the documents were made and kept in the ordinary course of
`
`business, apply to the documents themselves, not the appended metadata readout.
`
`2
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00003
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`I assigned my interest in the ’462 Patent to Novo Nordisk A/S, which
`
`4.
`
`issued on September 19, 2017.
`
`5.
`
`In this declaration, I provide my recollection of certain events and
`
`activities relating to the development of the subject matter of the ’462 Patent and the
`
`invention in the claims. Many of these events and activities took place over a decade
`
`ago, some as many as 15 years ago. As described below, some of my recollections
`
`regarding the relevant individuals, documents, and events are specific, and some are
`
`more general. Except as otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`set forth in this Declaration. All statements herein made of my own knowledge are
`
`true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. If
`
`called upon to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`6.
`
`As detailed further below in Section II, while I was working at Novo
`
`Nordisk, based in Denmark, I came to the firm view that once-weekly dosage of 1.0
`
`mg semaglutide administered subcutaneously would be an appropriate treatment (or
`
`maintenance) dose for patients with type-2 diabetes by March 17, 2010, and in any
`
`event no later than May 28, 2010, when that treatment dose was the subject of a final
`
`recommendation for use in Phase 3 trials. I reached the firm view that such a
`
`treatment dose would provide the right balance of efficacy and tolerability in
`
`lowering HbA1c levels for patients with type-2 diabetes and, among other things, I
`
`3
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Background
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I am a medical doctor who in the period between September 1, 2007
`
`I.
`
`
`and January 30, 2016 served in a drug development role at Novo Nordisk. I earned
`
`my M.D. in 1996 and Ph.D. in 2002, both from the University of Copenhagen in
`
`Denmark. After that, I was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at in the Joslin Diabetes
`
`4
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`Center at Harvard University from 2002 through 2004, and then continued my
`
`Postdoctoral Research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen through July
`
`2007. I am currently a Senior Alliance Director in the Early Innovation, Outreach
`
`and Alliances area at Novo Nordisk.
`
`10.
`
`In September 2007, I started working at Novo Nordisk. My title then
`
`was International Medical Director, and I was part of Novo Nordisk’s Medical and
`
`Science Team. At that time, Novo Nordisk was preparing to report results from its
`
`first in-human study of semaglutide, NN9535-1820 (the “1820 Trial”), a Phase 1
`
`study involving healthy male volunteers. My new responsibilities involved
`
`shepherding the clinical development strategy and clinical development plan for
`
`semaglutide for diabetes going forward.
`
`11. By
`
`, I had begun work on designing a Phase 2 dose range-
`
`finding study. The purpose of the study was to determine the once-weekly
`
`subcutaneous dose range of semaglutide that would be effective and tolerated in
`
`patients with type-2 diabetes. In addition to designing and executing this Phase 2
`
`study, I was also responsible for analyzing, interpreting, and reporting the resulting
`
`data.
`
`12. My Phase 2 dose range-finding study was given the internal identifier
`
`NN9535-1821 (the “1821 Trial”) and
`
`the ClinicalTrials.gov identifier of
`
`5
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00006
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`NCT00696657 (“NCT657”).
`
`The study commenced in June 2008 and was
`
`completed in February 2009. It tested once-weekly subcutaneous administrations of
`
`semaglutide at 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, 0.4 mg, and 0.8 mg, and dose escalated regimens
`
`with treatment doses of 0.8 mg and 1.6 mg, in men and women-not-of-childbearing-
`
`potential diagnosed with type-2 diabetes. The resulting data, which were obtained
`
`by Po (and incorporated, in part, into the specification of the °462
`
`ee
`ee
`13. a. which I have reviewed,is a true and correct copy of the
`
`slide presentation,ae. that my team andI prepared and shared at
`on incrnenES>
`
`a S
`
`S1 sic202 cecognizeI 2
`
`and correct copy of that email. Based on my knowledgeof the 1821 Trial, I confirm
`
`the email and attached presentation were madeand kept in the regular and ordinary
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`6
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00007
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`my team and I concludedthat, in comparisonto liraglutide
`
`(another GLP-1 analog developed by Novo Nordisk), once-weekly doses of 0.4 mg
`
`semaglutide provided comparable efficacy on glycemic control to daily doses of
`
`liraglutide at 1.2 mg, and once-weekly doses of 0.8 mg or 1.6 mg of semaglutide
`
`brought more subjects to target than daily doses ofliraglutide at 1.8 mg. ie
`BEThese results were kept confidential and non-public.
`
`If. My Conception of Treating Type-2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly Subcuta-
`neous Administrationsof 1.0 mg Semaglutide by March 17, 2010, and No
`Later Than May 28, 2010
`
`14. After the data from the Phase 2 dose range-finding study were
`
`confidentially shared within Novo Nordisk ona. I recall there was zm
`
`’.
`
`course of Novo Nordisk’s business, at or near the date appearing on the documents,
`
`by persons with knowledgeofthe facts and opinionsstated therein.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`7
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00008
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`—".
`
`reviewed,is a true and correct copy of an po that I received and have stored on
`my computer, inwich
`
`==Qoe —_ afe]<ioO
`
`16.
`
`The results of the 1821 Trial indicated to me that treatment dose-
`
`dependently reduced HbA;, within the tested dose range, meaning increased doses
`
`led to greater reductions of HbA. a The results also indicated to me
`
`that increasing doses of semaglutide, using no or minimal doseescalation, led to
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`§
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00009
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`decreased tolerability and thus increased rates of subjects withdrawing from the
`
`$y
`ae data showed that the proportion of subjects withdrawing from the
`
`1821 Trial due to gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, was
`
`dose-dependent. ee During this period of time, I wasI
`ee
`
`a V
`
`7. po which I have reviewed, is a true and correct copy of a
`confidential slide deck stored on my computer,an thati
`I52222
`
`onrTrt~i‘OSCSY whichis the type of slide that I would have typically
`prepared for such presentations,es
`ee
`
`> This presentation deck was made and keptin the regular and ordinary course of
`
`Novo Nordisk’s business, at or near the date appearing on the document, and I had
`
`knowledgeof the facts and opinionsstated therein at the time I madethis presenta-
`
`tion.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`9
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00010
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`>L March 17, 2010
`
`by persons with knowledge ofthe facts and opinions containedtherein at the time,
`
`and made and keptin the regular and ordinary course of Novo Nordisk’s business.
`
`was made
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`10
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00011
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`ll
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00012
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`N _
`
`po and based on my experience and expertise, I concluded that a once-
`
`weekly 1.0 mg dose, administered subcutaneously and preceded by 4 weeks dosing
`
`at 0.25 mg and 4 weeksat 0.5 mg, would be a viable treatmentdosefor treating type-
`
`2 diabetes because
`
`ES3:
`
`> These| were made and keptin the regular and ordinary course of
`
`Novo Nordisk’s business,at or near the date appearing on the document, by persons
`
`with knowledge of the facts and opinionsstated therein at the time the models were
`
`made. Based on my duties as the Medical Directorat the time, I know that it was a
`
`regular practice at Novo Nordisk to communicate
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`12
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00013
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`© ThisSs was made andkept in the regular and ordinary course of Novo
`
`Nordisk’s business, on my computer, at or near the date appearing on the document,
`
`and I had knowledge of the facts and opinionsstated therein at the time I madethis
`
`presentation. Suchslide presentations were a common way of communicating with
`
`our advisory boards.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`13
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00014
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`for the once-weekly 1.0 mg treatment dose, the slide deck also included, among
`
`© --=aO Los|rg otSoO
`
`As support
`
`B. May28,2010
`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed a set of documents that were contemporaneously or
`
`near-contemporaneously made in relation to a May 28, 2010 a)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`14
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00015
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`7 ThesePo were made andkeptin the regular and ordinary
`
`course of Novo Nordisk’s business, typically made a few daysprior to the scheduled
`
`meeting, by persons with knowledgeof the facts and opinionsstated therein.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Be,
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00016
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`, which I have reviewed,is a true and correct copy of that
`
`were made andkept in the
`
`regular and ordinary course of Novo Nordisk’s business, at or near the date appear-
`
`ing on the email, by persons with knowledge ofthe facts and opinionsstated therein.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`16
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00017
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`also id., 13, 15 te. As the Medical Director, I would have
`
`presented on my treatment dose of 1.0 mg once-weekly
`
`° Thesea were madeand keptin the regular and ordinary course of
`
`Novo Nordisk’s business, at or near the date of the meeting, by persons with
`
`knowledge of the facts and opinionsstated therein.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`17
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00018
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`18
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00019
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`19
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00020
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`20
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00021
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DA
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00022
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`22
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00023
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`23
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00024
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`
`I have been warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the
`
`patentat issue in this proceeding, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
`
`of the United States of America that the foregoingis true and correct.
`
`Executed on January 17, 2024 at Copenhagen, Denmark.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`24
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms.Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724
`U.S. Patent 10,335,462
`/Christine Bjørn Jensen /
`
`Christine B. Jensen, M.D., Ph.D.
`
`25
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2050
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00026
`
`