throbber
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 No. IPR2023-00724
`Patent No. 10,335,462
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL DALBY, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,335,462
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 1
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 1 of 115
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications and Background ............................................................. 8
`A.
`Education and Experience; Prior Testimony .................................. 8
`B.
`Basis for Opinions and Materials Considered............................... 12
`C.
`Retention and Compensation ..................................................... 12
`Summary of Opinions ....................................................................... 13
`II.
`III. Legal Standards ................................................................................ 14
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 16
`V.
`The ’462 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................ 18
`A.
`The Formulation Claims of the ’462 Patent ................................. 18
`B.
`The Prosecution History of the ’462 Patent.................................. 20
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................... 23
`VII. Background on GLP-1 Compound Formulations Used to Treat
`Diabetes .......................................................................................... 24
`A.
`Parenteral formulations and components thereof were well-
`known .................................................................................... 24
`B. GLP-1 compounds were well-known .......................................... 25
`C. GLP-1 agonists and related formulations were well-known ........... 28
`D.
`Parenteral dosage forms for peptide-based drugs .......................... 29
`1.
`Tonicity and osmolarity of the parenteral formulation .......... 31
`2.
`pH and buffering capacity of the parenteral formulation ....... 32
`3.
`Avoiding particulates in the parenteral formulation ............. 33
`4.
`Vehicles and diluents of the parenteral formulation ............. 33
`5.
`Excipients of the parenteral formulation............................. 34
`VIII. Scope and Content of the Prior Art ...................................................... 35
`A. WO 2011/138421 (“WO421”) (Ex. 1011) ................................... 36
`B. U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US2007/0010424 (’424
`publication) (Ex. 1016) ............................................................. 38
`
`2
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 2
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 2 of 115
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Clinical Trial No. NCT00696657 (NCT657) (Ex. 1013)................ 40
`C.
`D. Clinical Trial No. NCT00851773 (NCT773) (Ex. 1014)................ 42
`E. WO 2006/097537 (“WO537”) (Ex. 1015) ................................... 44
`F.
`Lovshin (Ex. 1012) .................................................................. 48
`G. Other Art That Informs the POSA’s Knowledge .......................... 49
`1.
`Lund (Ex. 1035) ............................................................. 49
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,022,674 (“’674 patent”) (Ex. 1075) .......... 51
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,458,924 (“’924 patent”) (Ex. 1073) .......... 53
`4.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,284,727 (“’727 patent”) (Ex. 1071) .......... 53
`5.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343 (“Knudsen patent”) (Ex. 1034) .... 54
`6.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,512,549 (“’549 patent”) (Ex. 1017) .......... 55
`7.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,164,366 (“’366 patent”) (Ex. 1072) .......... 56
`8.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,118,666 (“’666 patent”) (Ex. 1056) .......... 57
`9.
`Victoza label (Ex. 1039) .................................................. 57
`10. WO 03/002136 (“WO136”) (Ex. 1041).............................. 58
`11. WO 00/37098 (“WO098”) (Ex. 1074) ............................... 60
`12. Additional prior art and references .................................... 61
`IX. Unpatentability of the Claims of the ’462 Patent ................................... 61
`A. Grounds 3 and 5: Claims 4–10 of the ’462 patent would have
`been obvious over WO421 considering the ’424 publication or
`over NCT657 and NCT773 considering the ’424 publication ......... 61
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide as an isotonic aqueous solution for
`subcutaneous injection with a reasonable expectation of
`success .......................................................................... 63
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide with propylene glycol and phenol with a
`reasonable expectation of success ..................................... 67
`
`2.
`
`3
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 3
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 3 of 115
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide with a phosphate buffer, such as sodium
`dihydrogen phosphate, with a reasonable expectation of
`success .......................................................................... 72
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide with a pH in the range of 7.0-9.0, or at a pH
`of 7.4, with a reasonable expectation of success .................. 75
`The dependent limitations of claim 4 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 79
`The dependent limitations of claim 5 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 81
`The dependent limitations of claim 6 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 82
`The dependent limitations of claim 7 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 83
`The dependent limitations of claim 8 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 84
`10. The dependent limitations of claim 9 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 85
`11. The dependent limitations of claim 10 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 88
`12. Conclusion..................................................................... 89
`B. Ground 4: Claims 4–10 of the ’462 patent would have been
`obvious over WO537 considering Lovshin .................................. 90
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide as an isotonic aqueous solution for
`subcutaneous injection with a reasonable expectation of
`success .......................................................................... 91
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide with propylene glycol and phenol with a
`reasonable expectation of success ..................................... 93
`
`2.
`
`4
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 4
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 4 of 115
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide with a phosphate buffer, such as sodium
`dihydrogen phosphate, with a reasonable expectation of
`success .......................................................................... 94
`A POSA would have been motivated to formulate
`semaglutide with a pH in the range of 7.0-9.0, or at a pH
`of 7.4, with a reasonable expectation of success .................. 96
`The dependent limitations of claim 4 would have been
`obvious.......................................................................... 98
`The dependent limitations of claim 5 would have been
`obvious........................................................................ 100
`The dependent limitations of claim 6 would have been
`obvious........................................................................ 101
`The dependent limitations of claim 7 would have been
`obvious........................................................................ 102
`The dependent limitations of claim 8 would have been
`obvious........................................................................ 103
`10. The dependent limitations of claim 9 would have been
`obvious........................................................................ 104
`11. The dependent limitations of claim 10 would have been
`obvious........................................................................ 106
`12. Conclusion................................................................... 107
`C. No Secondary Considerations Overcome Prima Facie
`Obviousness .......................................................................... 107
`1.
`The formulations recited in the ’462 patent produce no
`unexpected results......................................................... 107
`There was no long-felt but unmet need for the
`formulations recited in the ’462 patent ............................. 108
`There was no praise of the formulations recited in the
`’462 patent ................................................................... 109
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`5
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 5
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 5 of 115
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`4.
`
`There was no industry skepticism of the formulations
`recited in the ’462 patent................................................ 110
`X. Reservation of Rights ...................................................................... 110
`
`6
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 6
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 6 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Full Name of Cited Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 5,164,366
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US2007/0010424
`U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462
`U.S. Patent No. 5,512,549
`U.S. Patent No. 5,118,666
`U.S. Patent No. 7,022,674
`U.S. Patent No. 6,284,727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,458,924
`U.S. Patent No. 6,268,343
`Lovshin, Incretin-Based Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes
`Mellitus, 5 NATURE REVIEWS ENDOCRINOLOGY 262 (2009)
`Lund, Emerging GLP-1Receptor Agonists, 16 EXPERT
`OPINION ON EMERGING DRUGS 607 (2011)
`Boylan, Parenteral Products, in MODERN PHARMACEUTICS
`(Gilbert S. Banker et al. eds., 3d ed. 1996)
`Clinical Trial No. NCT00696657
`Clinical Trial No. NCT00851773
`Ozempic prescribing information (Oct. 2022)
`REMINGTON: THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF PHARMACY
`(Alfonso R. Gennaro ed., 20th ed. 2000)
`Victoza, PHYSICIANS’ DESK REFERENCE (65th ed. 2010)
`WO 00/37098
`WO 03/002136
`WO 2011/058193
`WO 2011/073328
`WO 2011/138421
`WO 2006/097537
`
`Abbreviation
`’366 patent
`’424 publication
`’462 patent
`’549 patent
`’666 patent
`’674 patent
`’727 patent
`’924 patent
`Knudsen patent
`Lovshin
`
`Lund
`
`Modern Pharmaceutics
`
`NCT657
`NCT773
`Ozempic label
`Remington
`
`Victoza label
`WO098
`WO136
`WO193
`WO328
`WO421
`WO537
`
`7
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 7
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 7 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1. My name is Paul Dalby, Ph.D. I have been retained by Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) to provide my expert opinions regarding the
`
`unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462 (“’462 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I
`
`understand that Mylan intends to petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’462
`
`patent, which is assigned to Novo Nordisk A/S. I also understand that, in the IPR
`
`petition, Mylan will request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`cancel all claims of the ’462 patent as unpatentable. I submit this expert declaration
`
`to address and support Mylan’s IPR petition for the ’462 patent.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`A. Education and Experience; Prior Testimony
`I earned my doctorate at Cambridge University, UK, in 1998 where I
`2.
`
`studied protein folding mechanisms, using protein engineering to alter the relative
`
`stabilities of the native, denatured, intermediate and transition states, and evaluating
`
`the effects of a range of temperature, pH and presence of viscosity modifiers in the
`
`formulation. From 1998 to 2000, I was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of
`
`Pennsylvania, where I studied the relationship between protein structure, stability
`
`and function through protein engineering and biophysical characterisation, and also
`
`methods to improve stability and minimize aggregation in protein therapeutic
`
`formulations. In 2000, I was appointed Lecturer at University College London
`
`(UCL) in the Department of Biochemical Engineering. My research focused on new
`
`8
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 8
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 8 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`strategies for evolutionary protein and enzyme design, researching factors to
`
`
`
`strengthen protein stability during biopharmaceutical downstream processes, and
`
`developing stability analysis methods to optimise the process and maintain proper
`
`protein formulation.
`
`3.
`
`From 2004-2006, I was principal investigator on a project funded by
`
`the Department of Trade and Industry in conjunction with the Health Protection
`
`Agency, UK, to establish protein, process, and formulation engineering methods for
`
`novel protein fusions. During that time, I was an active member of the Protein
`
`Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the RSC Biotechnology Group Committee,
`
`the Institution of Chemical Engineers, and the American Chemical Society. I
`
`organized conferences on behalf of these organizations including the 2006
`
`“Therapeutic Proteins: Chemical & Enzymatic Modification” in London. Based on
`
`my work with the previous organizations, I was invited to a joint BIA & Bioprocess
`
`UK workshop in 2005. The workshop led to the establishment of biopharmaceutical
`
`formulation as a funding priority in the DTI technology transfer program.
`
`4.
`
`In 2006, I began a long-term collaboration with the National Institute
`
`of Biological Standards and Controls in the UK to improve the tools and techniques
`
`used in liquid and freeze-dried protein formulation development. The projects
`
`undertaken used biophysical analysis and statistical design of experiments
`
`9
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 9
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 9 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`approaches, to optimise formulations, and to characterise and understand the impact
`
`
`
`of different excipients on their properties.
`
`5.
`
`In 2007, I was appointed Senior Lecturer at UCL and in 2009 I was
`
`appointed Reader at UCL in the Department of Biochemical Engineering. From
`
`2011 until 2016, I was Co-Director of the Engineering and Physical Sciences
`
`Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Innovative Manufacturing at UCL.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently Co-Director of the EPSRC Future Targeted Healthcare
`
`Manufacturing Hub and Director of the EPSRC Doctoral Training Centre for
`
`Innovative Manufacturing at UCL. In 2013, I was appointed Professor at UCL,
`
`Department of Biochemical Engineering, and in 2016 was named Deputy Head,
`
`Department of Biochemical Engineering (Research) at UCL. Over the course of my
`
`career at UCL, I have supervised numerous projects resulting in novel research and
`
`development in the field of protein stability. These projects resulted in developing a
`
`novel method for measuring protein stability in microtiter plates; development of
`
`enhanced bioprocessing for advanced pharmaceutical proteins, using directed
`
`evolution; and new methods of protein engineering and formulation resulting in
`
`improved biopharmaceutical stability. The various projects are listed in my CV. I
`
`have presented the results of my research on protein therapeutics and formulation at
`
`numerous international conferences including the Protein Science Forum 2005, the
`
`Cambridge Healthtech Institute 2006, ACHEMA 2006, BioProcess International
`
`10
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 10
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 10 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2007, 2011 & 2012, Recovery XIV 2010, World Biopharm Forum 2011, and the
`
`
`
`Royal Society of Chemistry MiBIO 2012.
`
`7.
`
`I am considered a key influencer of research priorities in the UK in the
`
`area of biopharmaceutical formulation. I have been appointed to lead government
`
`and industry groups for establishment of biopharmaceutical formulation protocols. I
`
`have provided consultancy services to a number of companies, including:
`
`Ajinomoto, Angel Biotechnology, Cambridge Antibody Technology (now
`
`MedImmune and owned by AstraZeneca), and Clear Capital Ltd. I also serve on the
`
`Scientific Advisory Board for Leukocare GmbH in Germany, and UMabs in the
`
`USA and China, and have presented my work at international conferences on
`
`biopharmaceutical formulation development.
`
`8.
`
`I have been given numerous research grants to research and supervise
`
`projects impacting the biochemical protein industry. My research interests include:
`
`accelerating therapeutic protein and vaccine formulation design for stability in both
`
`liquid and lyophilized forms; biophysical characterisation of protein aggregation and
`
`stability in formulations and bioprocess manufacturing; protein engineering for
`
`stability; using directed evolution, structural analysis, bioinformatics and
`
`computational design, high-throughput bioprocess design, including precipitation
`
`and inclusion body refolding; design and development of novel analytical methods
`
`for bioprocess monitoring and characterisation of formulations.
`
`11
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 11
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 11 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`In the previous four years, I have provided testimony in the following
`
`
`
`proceedings:
`
`• Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. et al., IPR2022-00578 (PTAB);
`• XOMA (US) LLC v. MorphoSys AG, Case No. 01-21-0004-4508
`(ICDR, Nov. 2022);
`• Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01551-
`KAJ-SRF (D. Del.); and
`
`• Merck & Co Inc. v. Wyeth, NSD1381/2017 (Australia).
`10. My qualifications are further described on my curriculum vitae, found
`
`at Exhibit 1008.
`
`B. Basis for Opinions and Materials Considered
`11. Exhibit A includes a list of the materials I considered, in addition to my
`
`experience, education, and training, to provide the opinions contained in this
`
`declaration.
`
`C. Retention and Compensation
`12. Mylan retained me as a technical expert to provide various opinions
`
`about the ’462 patent. I am being compensated at a rate of 360 GBP per hour plus
`
`expenses for this work. My compensation is in no way tied to the outcome of this
`
`proceeding or to the content of this declaration, and it has not altered my opinions.
`
`12
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 12
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 12 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`13. My opinions are limited to semaglutide formulations used in the
`
`treatment of diabetes, as claimed in the ’462 patent. I present my opinions from the
`
`perspective of a POSA, who is defined in Section IV.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that Mylan’s expert Dr. John Bantle offers the opinions
`
`that it would have been obvious to a POSA to treat diabetes with a once-weekly, 1.0
`
`mg semaglutide injectable formulation, as recited in the limitations of claims 1–3,
`
`containing the components recited in claims 4–10 (which I address herein), with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`
`15. Based on my view of the prior art and, for certain claims, Dr. Bantle’s
`
`additional views of the prior art, it is my opinion that the claims of the ’462 patent
`
`would have been obvious over the following combinations of references:
`
`a) Claims 4–10 of the ’462 patent would have been obvious over WO421
`
`considering the ’424 publication (Ground 3) or over NCT657 and
`
`NCT773 considering the ’424 publication (Ground 5); and
`
`b) Claims 4–10 of the ’462 patent would have been obvious over WO537
`
`considering Lovshin (Ground 4).
`
`16. These references would have motivated a POSA to formulate a 1.0 mg
`
`semaglutide injectable formulation containing the components recited in claims 4–
`
`13
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 13
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 13 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`10 to treat type 2 diabetes, as described by Dr. Bantle (claims 1–10), with a
`
`
`
`reasonable expectation of success doing so.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner may present expert opinions regarding
`
`“secondary considerations” of non-obviousness of the formulations recited in the
`
`method of treatment claims in response to my declaration, and that I may be asked
`
`to address such opinions in the future. I therefore expressly reserve the right to
`
`address later all issues of secondary considerations that Patent Owner’s experts may
`
`raise.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`18. To prepare and form my opinions set forth in this declaration, I have
`
`been informed of the relevant legal principles.1 I applied my understanding of those
`
`principles in forming my opinions. My understanding of those principles is
`
`summarized below.
`
`
`1 To support my analysis and to help me reach my opinions and conclusions, I was
`
`informed of and advised to apply various legal principles relating to unpatentability,
`
`which I set forth here. By setting forth these legal standards, I do not intend to testify
`
`about the law. I only provide my understanding of the law, as explained to me by
`
`counsel, as a context for the opinions and conclusions I provide in this case.
`
`14
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 14
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 14 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that Mylan bears the burden of proving
`
`
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I have been told that this means
`
`it must be more likely than not that the claims are unpatentable.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that my opinions regarding unpatentability are from the
`
`viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the field of technology
`
`of the patent as of the patent’s priority date. I have also been informed by counsel
`
`that when defining a POSA, the following factors may be considered: (1) the
`
`educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`and (5) sophistication of the technology and educational level of active workers in
`
`the field. Further, I understand a POSA is generally skilled in the relevant art (i.e.,
`
`the subject matter claimed and described in the patent).
`
`21.
`
`I am told that for a patent to be anticipated, a prior art reference must
`
`disclose all elements of that claim expressly and/or inherently as arranged in the
`
`claim. With respect to inherent disclosure, there is no requirement that a POSA
`
`would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of the invention, but only
`
`that the subject matter is in fact inherent, or necessarily present, in the prior art
`
`reference.
`
`22.
`
`I am told that the concept of patent obviousness involves four factual
`
`inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`15
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 15
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 15 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4)
`
`
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that when there is some recognized reason to solve a
`
`problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable, and known
`
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known
`
`options within his or her technical grasp. If such an approach leads to the expected
`
`success, it is likely not the product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense. I understand that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the
`
`time of invention or addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
`
`prior art elements to arrive at the claimed subject matter. I understand that only a
`
`reasonable expectation of success is necessary to show obviousness.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`In my opinion, the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`24.
`
`the art applies to the claims of the ’462 patent. I reserve the right to amend and/or
`
`supplement my opinions on unpatentability if a different definition of a POSA is
`
`adopted or agreed to.
`
`25. A POSA would have understood the prior art references referred to
`
`herein and would have the capability to draw inferences from the prior art references.
`
`It is understood that, to the extent necessary, a POSA may collaborate with one or
`
`more other POSAs for one or more aspects with which the other POSA may have
`
`16
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 16
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 16 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`expertise, experience, and/or knowledge. Additionally, a POSA could have had a
`
`
`
`lower level of formal education than what I describe in the following definition if
`
`the person has a higher degree of experience. In view of the relatively high level of
`
`skill and the clear teachings in the prior art, the level of skill of a POSA is not
`
`dispositive of any issue raised in this Petition.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, the following definition of a POSA applies to the claims
`
`of the ’462 patent. A POSA would have (1) an M.D., Pharm.D., or Ph.D. in
`
`pharmacy, chemical engineering, bioengineering, chemistry, or related discipline;
`
`(2) at least two years of experience in protein or peptide therapeutic development
`
`and/or manufacturing or diabetes treatments; and (3) experience with the
`
`development, design, manufacture, formulation, or administration of therapeutic
`
`agents, and the literature concerning protein or peptide formulation and design, or
`
`diabetes treatments.
`
`27. Alternatively, a POSA would be (1) a highly-skilled scientist lacking
`
`an M.D., Pharm.D., or Ph.D., but would have (2) more than five years of experience
`
`in the area of protein or peptide therapeutic development and/or manufacturing or
`
`diabetes treatments; and/or (3) experience with the development, design,
`
`manufacture, or formulation of therapeutic agents, and the literature concerning
`
`protein or peptide formulation and design or diabetes treatments. In either case, a
`
`17
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 17
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 17 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`higher educational level could substitute for some amount of the requisite
`
`
`
`experience.
`
`28. As explained above, and as is evident from my CV, I met the
`
`qualifications of a POSA as of the priority date of the ’462 patent.
`
`V. THE ’462 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`I have read the ’462 patent, which is titled “Use of Long-Acting GLP-
`29.
`
`1 Peptides,” including its claims, and reviewed relevant portions of the file history
`
`of the ’462 patent (Ex. 1002).
`
`30.
`
`I have assumed that the earliest priority date to which the asserted
`
`claims of the ’462 patent are entitled is July 1, 2012, which is the date recited on the
`
`face of the patent for foreign reference EP12174535, listed under “Foreign
`
`Application Priority Data.” To the extent Patent Owner later asserts and/or proves
`
`that the asserted claims are entitled to an earlier priority or invention date, I reserve
`
`the right to supplement this declaration.
`
`A. The Formulation Claims of the ’462 Patent
`31. The ’462 patent has one independent claim, which recites:
`
`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.
`
`18
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 18
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 18 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`32. Dependent claims 4–10 depend from claim 1, directly or indirectly, and
`
`
`
`are provided below.
`
`33. Dependent claim 4 recites:
`
`4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the
`semaglutide is administered in the form of an isotonic
`aqueous solution comprising phosphate buffer at a pH in
`the range of 7.0-9.0.
`
`34. Dependent claim 5 recites:
`
`5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the solution
`further comprises propylene glycol and phenol.
`
`35. Dependent claim 6 recites:
`
`6. The method according to claim 4, wherein the pH is 7.4.
`
`36. Dependent claim 7 recites:
`
`7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the solution
`further comprises propylene glycol and phenol.
`
`37. Dependent claim 8 recites:
`
`8. The method according to claim 4, wherein the
`phosphate buffer is a sodium dihydrogen phosphate
`buffer.
`
`38. Dependent claim 9 recites:
`
`19
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 19
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 19 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the
`semaglutide is administered by subcutaneous injection in
`the form of an isotonic aqueous solution comprising at a
`sodium dihydrogen phosphate buffer at a pH in the range
`of 7.0-9.0, and wherein the solution further comprises
`propylene glycol and phenol.
`
`39. Dependent claim 10 recites:
`
`10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the pH is
`7.4.
`
`B. The Prosecution History of the ’462 Patent
`40. When the application for the ’462 patent was filed on July 21, 2017,
`
`independent claim 1 recited:
`
`1. A method for
`
`a) reduction of HbA1c;
`
`b) treatment of type 2 diabetes, hyperglycemia, impaired
`glucose tolerance, or non-insulin dependent diabetes; or
`
`c) treatment of obesity, reducing body weight and/or food
`intake, or inducing satiety;
`
`wherein said method comprises administration of a GLP-
`1 agonist to a subject in need thereof, wherein said GLP-1
`agonist
`
`i) has a half-life of at least 72 hours;
`
`20
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 20
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 20 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii) is administered in an amount of at least 0.7 mg per
`week, such an amount equivalent to at least 0. 7 mg
`semaglutide per week; and
`
`iii) is administered once weekly or less often.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 8.
`
`41. The Examiner rejected the filed claims on July 23, 2018, based on
`
`NCT00696657, which disclosed the use of semaglutide and liraglutide, Madsbad
`
`(2011), which disclosed the use of several GLP-1 agonists, and Kim (2007), which
`
`disclosed the use of exenatide, anticipated the claims because they each disclosed a
`
`method of treatment with at least 0.8 mg of GLP-1 agonist once weekly (NCT657
`
`with 0.8 mg semaglutide; Madsbad with 4, 15, and 30 mg albiglutide; and Kim with
`
`0.8 and 2.0 mg exenatide), with all the other requirements satisfied (treating type 2
`
`diabetes and reducing HbA1c, with a half-life in the required range, etc.). See Ex.
`
`1002 (July 23, 2018 Office Action) at 312.
`
`42. The applicants then amended claim 1 to recite:
`
`1. (Currently Amended) 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
`
`a) reduction of HbA1c;
`
`b) treatment of type 2 diabetes, hyperglycemia, impaired
`glucose tolerance, or non-insulin dependent diabetes; or
`
`21
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 21
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 21 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`c) treatment of obesity, reducing body weight and/or food
`intake, or inducing satiety;
`
`wherein said method comprises administration of a GLP-
`1 agonist to a subject in need thereof,
`
`wherein said GLP-1 agonist
`
`i) has a half-life of at least 72 hours;
`
`ii) is administered in an amount of at least 0.7 mg per
`week, such an amount equivalent to at least 0.7 mg
`semaglutide per week; and
`
`iii) is administered once weekly or less often.
`
`See Ex. 1002 (January 23, 2019 listing of claims) at 332.
`
`43. The applicants also filed a terminal disclaimer over U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,764,003, which claims “[a] method for reducing body weight, comprising
`
`administering [only] semaglutide once weekly in an amount of at least 0.7 mg and
`
`up to 1.6 mg to a subject in need thereof.” See Ex. 1002 (February 28, 2019 Terminal
`
`disclaimer) at 336.
`
`44. The Examiner then withdrew the anticipation rejections and allowed
`
`the claims, stating:
`
`The ’657 clinical trial compared semaglutide and
`liraglutide in treatment of type 2 diabetic patients. The
`semaglutide or liraglutide was used as on add-on therapy
`
`22
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1007 PAGE 22
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1007, p. 22 of 115
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`to type 2 diabetic patients already taking metformin.
`Efficacy of treatment was further assessed by a

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