throbber
Post Grant Review No.
`Patent No. 9,173,942
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.2R-021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD. and
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. and ROCHE PALO ALTO LLC
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,173,942 to Giorgio Calderari et al.
`Issue Date: November 3, 2015
`Title: LIQUID PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS OF PALONOSETRON
`____________________________
`
`Post Grant Review No. xxxxx
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Exhibit 1026
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRISTOPHER A. FAUSEL IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-6, 10, AND 11 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,173,942
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.200 ET SEQ.
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., et al.
`v.
`Helsinn Healthcare S.A., et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:22),(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:21)
`Reddy Exhibit 1026
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`I, DR. CHRISTOPHER A. FAUSEL, declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a citizen of the United States of America and reside at 5411
`
`North Capitol Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively “DRL,” Petitioner,” or “Requestor”) to
`
`consider issues relating to the validity of claims 1-6, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,173,942 (“the ‘942 Patent”). I have also been retained by DRL to provide my
`
`expert opinions in connection with two of this patent’s predecessors, U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 9,066,980 and 8,729,094, which are the subject of litigation in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 12-2867). I
`
`provided an expert report in connection with that matter. I understand that Helsinn
`
`Healthcare S.A. and Roche Palo Alto LLC (collectively “Helsinn”) are the Patent
`
`Owners.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal rate for time spent working on
`
`this matter, which includes my time for preparing this declaration. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this case.
`
`4.
`
`I am presently a clinical pharmacist practicing at the Indiana
`
`University Simon Cancer Center in Indianapolis, Indiana charged with managing
`
`the operations and clinical practice of the cancer service line pharmacies.
`
`Accordingly, I have a great deal of experience with chemotherapeutic agents as
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`well as medications given to prevent or reduce the side effects of such treatments,
`
`including the dosing, schedules, and interactions of these types of pharmaceuticals.
`
`I have over 19 years of experience in practice as an oncology pharmacist at a
`
`National Cancer Institute designated clinical cancer center. My employment
`
`history, education, professional activities, patents, and other miscellaneous
`
`publications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit 1027.
`
`Exhibit 1027 also includes a listing of publications, including books and patents.
`
`5.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Science degree (Albany College of Pharmacy,
`
`1993) and a Doctor of Pharmacy degree (Albany College of Pharmacy, 1996). I
`
`achieved Board Certification in Oncology Pharmacy (BCOP) in 1999 and have
`
`maintained this designation with recertification every seven years.
`
`6.
`
`A Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) is a somewhat unique individual
`
`who can be involved in patient care in a number of different contexts. Often, they
`
`have daily interactions with treating physicians consulting on drug selection, dose,
`
`drug interactions, and treatment protocol selection, particularly in a clinical
`
`oncology setting. A Pharm.D. who provides direct patient care to oncology patients
`
`has particular expertise in the supportive care aspect of cancer care. Supportive
`
`care with respect to drug therapy can encompass using medications to ameliorate
`
`nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy or surgery, appropriate use of
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`2
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`anti-infective drugs, pain management, and proper dosing of medications in
`
`patients that have impaired liver or kidney function.
`
`7.
`
`Pharmacists specializing in oncology that work at large academic
`
`medical centers actively participate
`
`in
`
`the
`
`tripartite mission of
`
`these
`
`institutions: patient care, education, and research. Like physicians, we are very
`
`well versed in pharmacokinetics, dosing, and administration issues, as well as
`
`practical issues relating to drug handling and storage. But we also understand a
`
`number of issues that often fall into the realm of a drug formulator. A Pharm.D.
`
`may be involved in formulating and compounding, and thus, they have more than a
`
`basic understanding of common excipients, concepts like concentration, and
`
`physical and chemical stability. While a formulator might be more interested in
`
`how concentration can impact drug stability in the first instance, both a Pharm.D.
`
`and a formulator are likely to be concerned about compatibility between different
`
`drugs and diluents and drug stability issues. Thus, a Pharm.D.’s responsibilities
`
`and interests can overlap with those of treating physicians and formulators alike,
`
`making their input in drug design and analysis invaluable.
`
`8. My specific experience in research has been in collaboration with
`
`physician colleagues in the drafting and conducting of clinical trials in patients
`
`with cancer, including studies that focus on the use of antiemetic drugs in cancer.
`
`Additionally, I have served on Institutional Review Boards (IRB) for over 15 years
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`3
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`to assess the merit of clinical trial proposals with regard to the federal code of
`
`regulations for protection of human subjects. For the last three years, I have served
`
`in a volunteer capacity as the Chairman of the Board of a not-for-profit
`
`organization called the Hoosier Cancer Research Network, which is dedicated to
`
`doing high-quality investigator initiated trials in patients with cancer.
`
`9.
`
`I actively teach at the Purdue School of Pharmacy and the Indiana
`
`University School of Medicine for didactic classwork related to the therapeutic use
`
`of drugs in patients with cancer. Further, I provide a number of certified
`
`pharmacy/medical education lectures for pharmacists, nurses, and physicians at
`
`conferences throughout the United States. Lastly, I have provided experiential
`
`teaching at my clinical setting at Indiana University Simon Cancer Center for
`
`Doctor of Pharmacy students and graduate pharmacist resident trainees.
`
`I.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that patents are read in light of the knowledge of a person
`10.
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of the earliest effective filing date of the
`
`patent. I have been told by counsel to assume that the earliest effective filing date
`
`is January 30, 2003, for purposes of this proceeding. All of the prior art relied on in
`
`my declaration was published more than a year before the earliest effective filing
`
`date.
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`4
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`11.
`
`It has been explained to me that a POSA is a hypothetical person who
`
`is deemed to be aware of all relevant prior art. A POSA is also a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`12.
`
`I am further told by counsel that factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of skill in the art include: the educational level of the inventors, the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. I understand from counsel that a
`
`POSA may be a composite of different types of individuals.
`
`13.
`
`I understand from counsel that in a dispute between the Patent Owner
`
`and Petitioner in connection with other family members of the ‘942 Patent in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Patent Owner took the position
`
`that a POSA was “[s]omeone who is actively involved in the development of
`
`pharmaceutical products which involves collaborative teamwork among persons
`
`with relevant experience. This person would have a degree in chemistry,
`
`pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmacy, medicine, clinical pharmacology, or another
`
`pharmaceutical science-related field and experience in designing, developing,
`
`evaluating, and/or testing pharmaceutical formulations with a B.S. or master’s
`
`degree in, and two to three years experience, or a Ph.D. or M.D. degree and one to
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`5
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`two years of experience.” (Exh.1028.) I can accept this given the claims of the
`
`‘942 Patent.
`
`II. THE ‘942 PATENT
`14. The ‘942 Patent states that it is directed to shelf-stable liquid
`
`formulations of palonosetron for reducing chemotherapy and radiotherapy induced
`
`nausea and vomiting that can be used in the preparation of intravenous and oral
`
`medicaments. (Exh. 1001 Abstract.) As the patent states in the “Background of the
`
`Invention,” palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, a known class of drugs at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. They treat emesis by antagonizing cerebral
`
`functions associated with the 5-HT3 receptor. (Id. 1:28-33.) Drugs within this class
`
`include ondansetron, granisetron, alosetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron, which
`
`were all commercially available at the time of the alleged invention. (Id. 1:33-35,
`
`2:12-43.) I understand that these drugs are often administered intravenously shortly
`
`before the initiation of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and are effective in
`
`controlling acute emesis. (Id. 1:35-38, 47-53.)
`
`15. The specification of the ‘942 Patent acknowledges that the active
`
`compound palonosetron was already known, was disclosed in U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,202,333 (“the ‘333 Patent” or “Berger”) (Exh. 1006) as a 5-HT3 receptor
`
`antagonist, and is useful for the treatment of delayed emesis (Exh. 1001, 1:56-62).
`
`However, according to the patent, formulating palonosetron in liquid formulations
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`6
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`was not an easy task, typically due to shelf-stability issues. (Id. 1:62-64.) The
`
`patent states that the intravenous palonosetron formulation in Example 13 of
`
`Berger had a “shelf stability of less than the 1-2 year time period required by health
`
`authorities in various countries.” (Id. 2:9-11.) It was an object of the invention to
`
`provide a palonosetron hydrochloride formulation with increased pharmaceutical
`
`stability. (Id. 2:44-60.)
`
`16. The ‘942 Patent then describes the alleged invention. The inventors
`
`allegedly discovered that palonosetron could be formulated at concentrations of
`
`only about one tenth the amounts of other previously known compounds for
`
`treating emesis. (Id. 3:4-10.) The specification discloses various concentration
`
`ranges of palonosetron in formulations. The broadest disclosed range is from about
`
`0.01mg/mL to about 5mg/mL palonosetron. (Id. 3:9-15.) Other disclosed
`
`palonosetron concentration ranges include from about 0.03mg/mL to about
`
`0.2mg/mL, with 0.05mg/mL touted as the optimal concentration. (Id. 5:3-6.)
`
`17. An advantage purportedly associated with
`
`lower dosages of
`
`intravenous palonosetron was the ability to administer the drug in a single
`
`intravenous bolus over a short, discrete time period. (Id. 5:7-12.) The patent also
`
`states that palonosetron concentration impacts stability, and the greatest stability
`
`was seen at the lowest palonosetron concentrations. (Id. 7:40-43.)
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`7
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`18. The specification offers the alleged discovery that by adjusting pH
`
`and/or excipient concentrations, it is possible to increase the stability of
`
`palonosetron formulations. (Id. 3:15-17.) The specification provides three instances
`
`in which this purportedly is the case.
`
`19. For example,
`
`the specification discloses
`
`that adjusting
`
`the
`
`formulation’s pH can increase the stability of the formulation. (Id. 3:19-23.) The
`
`specification discloses a pharmaceutically stable solution comprising palonosetron
`
`and a carrier, wherein the pH is “from about 4.0 to about 6.0.” (Id. 5:27-28.) Other
`
`suitable ranges include “from about 4.5 to 5.5.” (Id. 5:28-29.) A solution pH value
`
`of 5.0 allegedly imparts the greatest stability. (Id. 5: 30, 7:25-26.)
`
`20. The specification further states that a solution of palonosetron
`
`including a citrate buffer and EDTA can be stable. (Id. 3:24-29, 5:35-48.) Such a
`
`formulation can include about 0.01 to about 5.0mg/ml palonosetron, about 10 to
`
`about 100 millimoles citrate buffer and about 0.005 to about 1.0mg/ml EDTA. (Id.)
`
`The patent concludes that an optimal formulation includes EDTA 0.05% and
`
`20mM citrate buffer, with a pH of 5. (Id. 7:37-40.)
`
`21. The specification further states that the addition of mannitol, which
`
`can be accompanied by a chelating agent, can increase the stability of palonosetron
`
`formulations. (Id. 3:31-33, 5:63-6:10.) The chelating agent is preferably EDTA.
`
`(Id. 6:10.) The suitable concentration range of EDTA is from about 0.005mg/mL to
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`8
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`about 1.0mg/mL, with 0.5mg/mL disclosed as the optimal value. (Id. 6:11-14.)
`
`Likewise, the concentration of mannitol ranges from about 10.0mg/mL to about
`
`80.0mg/mL. (Id. 6:16-18.) The level of mannitol in a palonosetron formulation
`
`containing citrate buffer is said to be 4.15%. (Id. 7:52-54, Example 3.)
`
`22. The specification does not say which of the foregoing features, or
`
`combination of features, of a palonosetron formulation produces a particular level
`
`of stability (such as 24-month stability at room temperature). However, it discloses
`
`a
`
`representative
`
`formulation
`
`including palonosetron hydrochloride at a
`
`concentration of 0.05mg/ml, 41.5mg/ml of mannitol (a tonicifying agent),
`
`0.5mg/ml of EDTA (a chelating agent), citrate buffer, a pH adjusting agent (i.e.,
`
`NaOH/HCl) and water. This formulation is said to be useful for intravenous
`
`administration. (Id. 7:55-8:10, Example 4.)
`
`23. The specification does not disclose any tonicity agents other than
`
`sodium chloride and mannitol, does not mention a buffer other than citrate, and
`
`does not mention any chelating agents other than EDTA and citrate.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that the only claim terms to be construed for the purposes
`24.
`
`of
`
`this
`
`proceeding
`
`are
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`“formulation”
`
`and
`
`“pharmaceutical/pharmaceutically.” The
`
`term “formulation” as recited
`
`in
`
`claims 1-6, 10, and 11 is not defined in the specification. To a formulator, this term
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`9
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`means,
`
`the composition or “recipe” of a product.
`
`(Exh.1029, at 691
`
`(Formulate/formulation means “2. To prepare according to a specified formula.”
`
`Formula means “4a. A prescription of ingredients in fixed proportion; a recipe.”).)
`
`“Formulation,” per se, is not limited to “stable” formulations. “Formulation” is not
`
`limited to a single-use, unit dose, or indeed a dose at all. nor does it imply sterility.
`
`“Formulation” is not limited to any intended use and certainly not reducing the
`
`likelihood of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
`
`25. The terms “pharmaceutical” and “pharmaceutically” are also not
`
`defined in the specification. However, the term “pharmaceutically acceptable” is
`
`defined as “that which is useful in preparing a pharmaceutical composition that is
`
`generally safe, non-toxic and neither biologically nor otherwise undesirable and
`
`includes that which is acceptable for veterinary use as well as human
`
`pharmaceutical use.” (Exh.1001, at 4:19-23.) From the specification and claims of
`
`the ‘942 Patent, it is clear that these pharmaceutical formulations are intended for
`
`injection or infusion. A dictionary definition of “pharmaceutical” is that it is a drug
`
`or medicine. (Exh.1030, at 1316 (The term pharmaceutical means “adj. Of or
`
`relating to pharmacy or pharmacists. n. A pharmaceutical product or preparation.”
`
`The term pharmacy means “The art of preparing and dispensing drugs.” The term
`
`pharmaceutics means “The science of preparing and dispensing drugs.”).) I think a
`
`POSA would
`
`therefore understand
`
`that
`
`the
`
`terms “pharmaceutical” and
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`10
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`“pharmaceutically” mean that the claimed formulation is an injectable drug or
`
`medicine for humans or animals. But, that does not mean that the pharmaceutical
`
`formulation needs to be capable of providing any particular level of efficacy. These
`
`terms also do not mean that the formulation is administered as a single-use, unit
`
`dose, or that the pharmaceutical formulation constitutes a dose per se. These terms
`
`do not mean that the pharmaceutical formulation is limited to any intended use and
`
`certainly not to reducing the likelihood of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea
`
`and vomiting. These terms also do not impart a requirement for any particular level
`
`or duration of storage or shelf stability. The ‘094 and ‘980 Patents, which I
`
`understand are related to the ‘942 Patent, both expressly recite 18- or 24-month
`
`storage stability. No such term appears in the claims of the ‘942 Patent. I must
`
`conclude from this that the claims of the ‘942 Patent were not intended to be
`
`limited to any particular level or duration of storage stability.
`
`IV. THE PRIOR ART
`A. Dose Conversion
`26. The prior art sometimes discusses drug doses and amounts in different
`
`units than the claims. For example, claim 2 of the ‘942 Patent requires an amount
`
`of 0.25mg of palonosetron hydrochloride or other salt based on the weight of free
`
`palonosetron. This is not a recitation of a dose. The claimed invention is merely a
`
`formulation. Nothing in the claims suggests how much of this formulation would
`
`be administered to a human or animal or for what purpose. It is just an aqueous
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`11
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`solution containing a specified amount of palonosetron. Where the prior art reflects
`
`a dose, it often does so by reporting a number of micrograms per kilogram of body
`
`mass.
`
`27.
`
`I have converted all units to milligrams. The conversion process from
`
`doses in “µg/kg” (or other units) for either human or animal data to milligrams is
`
`as follows. To convert human data in µg/kg to mg, one converts to mg/kg and
`
`multiplies by a “standard” 70kg person. This is an approximation of average
`
`human weight (men and women). A dose of 1µg/kg would first be converted to
`
`0.001mg/kg and then multiplied by 70kg, resulting in 0.07mg.
`
`28.
`
`In the prosecution of the ‘219 Patent, which is the parent of the
`
`‘942 Patent, the Examiner relied upon this same 70kg standard weight conversion
`
`in explaining their position. (See Exh.1031, at 8.) Berger, owned by Patent Owner,
`
`used this conversion as well. (See Exh.1001, at 12:16-18 (“Therefore, a
`
`therapeutically effective amount for a 70kg human may range from . . . .”).)
`
`29. For animals, there is an extra step. After converting from µg/kg to
`
`mg/kg, the number is divided by a known factor of 5.3 for ferrets or 1.8 for dogs.
`
`This estimates equivalent doses in humans from animal doses. That result is then
`
`multiplied by a 70kg person. References in this report to doses in [square brackets]
`
`refers to the dose in humans in milligrams.
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`12
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`30. Animal doses are adjusted based on body surface area normalization
`
`using a common conversion factor as described by FDA in the December 2002
`
`draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry and Reviewers: Estimating the Safe
`
`Starting Dose in Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers”
`
`(Exh.1038). The extrapolation of the animal dose to human dose is calculated by
`
`dividing the dose in each of the animal species studied by the appropriate body
`
`surface area conversion factor (BSA-CF). The conversion factor is a unitless
`
`number that converts a mg/kg dose for each animal species to the mg/kg dose in
`
`humans. For ferrets, the animal dose is divided by a factor of 5.3. (See Exh.1038,
`
`at 6-7, Table 1.) The conversion factor for dogs is 1.8. (See id.)
`
`31. The Table 1 below reflects conversions of, as appropriate, µg/kg to
`
`mg fixed doses and animal doses to human doses in Eglen (Exh.1025) and Tang
`
`(Exh.1008).
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Amount in
`µg/kg
`0.1
`0.3
`1
`3
`10
`30
`100
`300
`
`Eglen
`(Human/Ferret)
`
`
`0.013mg
`0.04mg
`0.13mg
`0.4mg
`1.3mg
`
`
`Eglen
`(Human/Dog)
`
`0.012mg
`0.04mg
`0.12mg
`0.4mg
`1.2mg
`4.0mg
`12.0mg
`
`
`Tang (Human)
`0.007mg
`0.021mg
`0.07mg
`0.21mg
` n/a
`2.1mg
`
`
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`13
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`Berger
`B.
`32. The prior art Berger patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,202,333 (“Berger”),
`
`taught that palonosetron was 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and could be used in
`
`methods of treating diseases involving, among other things, emesis. (See Exh.1006,
`
`at 1:9-16, 3:16-24, 10:6-9.) Berger taught that palonosetron could be administered
`
`to humans (id. 9:50-55) as a pharmaceutical composition by the intravenous route,
`
`preferably “in a single unit dosage form” (id. 12:25-29, 13:1-5), and that the drug
`
`could be administered to treat CINV (id. 10:6-9 (“Compounds of Formula I are of
`
`particular value
`
`in
`
`treating
`
`(especially preventing)
`
`the emesis
`
`induced
`
`by . . . treatment for cancer with . . . chemotherapy. . . .”).
`
`33. Palonosetron could be employed as a pharmaceutically acceptable
`
`salt.
`
`(Exh.1006, at 3:13-15, 4:66-5:2.) Berger specifically disclosed
`
`the
`
`hydrochloride salt among a list of “pharmaceutically acceptable salts,” and taught
`
`that the compounds of Formula I, which include palonosetron, may “be converted
`
`to the corresponding acid addition salt with a pharmaceutically acceptable
`
`inorganic or organic acid.” (Id. 4:66-5:20, 19:30-33.)
`
`34. Berger identifies therapeutically effective amounts as including a
`
`range of 1.0ng/kg per day to 1.0mg/kg per day based on body weight, and a
`
`preferred range of 10ng/kg to 0.1mg/kg. (Id. 12:11-16.) As Berger explains, for a
`
`standard 70kg human, the preferred dose range is from 700ng/day to 7.0mg/day.
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`14
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`(Id. 12:11-18; ¶¶ 26-31, supra.) Converted to milligrams, the unit of measurement
`
`utilized in claim 2 of the ‘942 Patent, this preferred range is 0.0007mg to 7.0mg.
`
`Berger taught that palonosetron could be provided in single unit doses. (Id. 13:2.)
`
`35. Berger notes the amount of palonosetron in final dosage forms
`
`preferably ranges from 0.00001% w to 1.0%w. (Exh.1006, at 12:66-67.) This is
`
`actually a way of expressing concentration. The claimed concentration of
`
`0.05mg/ml, when converted to this weight scale, would be 0.005% w. Thus, the
`
`concentration claimed in claim 1 of the ‘942 Patent also falls within the
`
`concentration range described in Berger.
`
`36. Berger also discloses the use of various amounts of palonosetron
`
`(10mg-100mg) in Example 13. (Id. 29:6.) But this is clearly a reference to a
`
`concentration as opposed to a dose. The example does not specify how much of
`
`this exemplified formulation is to be given to a patient. Indeed, a POSA would not
`
`likely think that this example was describing a dose per se because 10mg is outside
`
`of the preferred dose range described in Berger, and 100mg is outside of the entire
`
`range described in Berger as being a therapeutically effective amount.
`
`37. Berger states: “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art of treating such
`
`diseases will be able, without undue experimentation and in reliance upon personal
`
`knowledge and the disclosure of this application, to ascertain a therapeutically
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`15
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`effective amount of a compound of Formula I for a given disease.” (Id. 12:19-24.) I
`
`agree.
`
`38. More than a year before what I understand to be the earliest effective
`
`filing date of the ‘942 Patent, there were publications of the results of Phase I
`
`studies showing that administering palonosetron over a wide range of doses was
`
`safe for humans. (Exhs.1046, 1047.) Eglen showed that various doses were safe
`
`and effective for animals as well. Knowing that palonosetron could be given over a
`
`broad range of doses safely and that it was effective over a broad range as well, a
`
`POSA would have been able to determine effective doses with nothing other than a
`
`normal degree of effort and experimentation.
`
`C. Eglen
`39. The Eglen paper also disclosed the use of intravenous solutions of
`
`palonosetron hydrochloride for treating CINV in animal studies. (Exh.1025,
`
`at 860-61, Fig.1.) Eglen taught that ferrets and dogs, the species tested, were art
`
`recognized models for emesis in humans. (Id. at 861.) That said, I note that the
`
`disclosure of the ‘942 Patent seems to embrace treating animals as well as humans.
`
`(Exh.1001, at 4:19-23 (“’Pharmaceutically acceptable’ means . . . and includes that
`
`which is acceptable for veterinary use as well as human pharmaceutical use.”).)
`
`40. Eglen showed effective dosages in ferrets in the range of 1-30µg/kg,
`
`but it tested doses up to 100µg/kg. For the doses of 1, 3, 10, and 30µg/kg
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`16
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`administered intravenously, an inhibitory effect against cisplatin induced emesis
`
`(reduction in the number of emetic episodes) was observed in ferrets at all doses,
`
`as illustrated in Eglen’s Fig. 5. (Exh.1025, at 863.) For a 70kg human subject (see
`
`¶¶ 26-31, supra), this dosage range corresponds to approximately 0.013 to 0.4mg
`
`of palonosetron [0.013, 0.04, 0.13, and 0.4mg, respectively]. This means that for
`
`all four of the doses tested, palonosetron exhibited efficacy in reducing CINV. The
`
`claimed amount of 0.25mg falls within this range of 0.013-0.4mg shown to be
`
`effective in Eglen.
`
`41. The data in dogs was similar and is illustrated in Eglen’s Fig. 6.
`
`(Exh.1025, at 863, Fig.6.) While doses of 0.3-300µg/kg were formulated (id.
`
`at 861), an inhibitory effect was observed in dogs at doses of 1, 3, 10, 30,
`
`and 100µg/kg [0.04, 0.12, 0.4, 1.2, and 4.0mg]. (Id.) The claimed amount of
`
`0.25mg of palonosetron falls within this range as well.
`
`42.
`
`It would be readily apparent to a POSA to combine Berger and Eglen
`
`and, in particular to apply the ranges used in Eglen to narrow the dose and
`
`concentration ranges described in Berger. Both tested (or suggested testing) in
`
`ferrets and dogs for efficacy in reducing the likelihood of CINV. (Exhs.1006
`
`Examples 16, 17; 1025, at 865.) Eglen was a later preclinical study published two
`
`years after Berger issued and more than five years after it originally was filed. And
`
`Eglen included actual efficacy data, including comparative data against another
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`17
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`setron, ondansetron. (Exh.1025, at 863.) No such data was presented in Berger.
`
`This would motivate a POSA to use the doses disclosed in Eglen to further focus
`
`the work of Berger, which encompassed those dose ranges. And it would provide a
`
`POSA with reasonable expectations of success in using those doses to produce
`
`formulations.
`
`D. Tang
`In 1998, Tang (Exh.1008) reported the preliminary efficacy results of
`43.
`
`palonosetron in a Phase II clinical study in women undergoing gynecological
`
`surgery; namely, hysterectomy. Palonosetron was administered to 218 patients to
`
`address postoperative nausea and vomiting (“PONV”), and was dosed at 0.1, 0.3,
`
`1.0, 3.0, and 30µg/kg [0.007mg, 0.021mg, 0.07mg, 0.21mg, and 2.1mg] when
`
`multiplied by a standard 70kg human subject or placebo (Exh.1008, at 462)
`
`administered by IV over 30 seconds, 20-30 minutes before the end of surgery (id.
`
`at 463).
`
`44. All of the IV doses were administered in a total volume of 15ml in an
`
`isotonic sodium chloride solution. (Id.) Thus, at the dose of 0.007mg, the
`
`concentration used was 0.0005mg/ml. For the 0.021mg, the concentration was
`
`0.0014mg/ml. At a 0.07mg dose, the concentration was 0.005mg/ml. At a 0.21mg
`
`dose, the concentration was 0.014mg/ml, and at a dose of 2.1mg, the concentration
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`18
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`was 0.14mg/ml. This range of concentrations encompasses
`
`the claimed
`
`concentration of 0.05mg/ml. (See Table 2.)
`
`Average
`Dose In
`weight
`Methods
`(kg)
`Section
`70kg
`0.1mcg/kg
`70kg
`0.3mcg/kg
`70kg
`1mcg/kg
`70kg
`3mcg/kg
`70kg
`30mcg/kg
`* Isotonic sodium chloride
`
`TABLE 2
`Total Dose
`Total Dose
`(mcg)
`(mg)
`
`Dilution*
`(mL)
`
`Concentration
`(mg/mL)
`
`7mcg
`21mcg
`70mcg
`210mcg
`2100mcg
`
`0.007mg
`0.021mg
`0.07mg
`0.21mg
`2.1mg
`
`15mL
`15mL
`15mL
`15mL
`15mL
`
`0.00047mg/mL
`0.0014mg/mL
`0.0047mg/mL
`0.014mg/mL
`0.14mg/mL
`
`45. Tang also taught that the doses of 0.021mg and above exhibited at
`
`least some efficacy in preventing emesis demonstrating that these doses reduced
`
`the likelihood of PONV. That said, none of the doses in the study below 2.1mg
`
`produced a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of vomiting and the
`
`requirement for rescue antiemetics. But Tang teaches a POSA pharmaceutical
`
`formulations containing palonosetron or a salt thereof, which were isotonic
`
`(Exh. 1008 at 463.), and had a range of concentrations that encompass the claimed
`
`concentration.
`
`46. Given the foregoing, the Berger, Eglen, and Tang references each
`
`taught an aqueous solution of palonosetron hydrochloride having a range of
`
`concentrations that bracket 0.05mg/mL. The amount claimed in claim 2 is
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`19
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`bracketed by the formulations disclosed in all three references as well. Berger and
`
`Tang made clear that their formulations were isotonic.
`
`V. THE ELEMENTS OF CLAIMS 1-6, 10, AND 11 OF
`THE ‘942 PATENT ARE KNOWN FROM THE PRIOR ART
`A. Pharmaceutically Sterile (All Claims Of The ‘942 Patent)
`47. Pharmacists have some experience with basic formulation and
`
`assessing pharmaceutical stability for injectable drugs. Pharmacists are charged
`
`with assessing active drug product and excipients in an intravenous drug
`
`formulation administered to patients so that they can consider things like allergic
`
`reactions, interactions between medications, and interactions between an active
`
`ingredient of one medication and an excipient of another. Further, often in
`
`hospitalized patients, multiple intravenous medications are being administered in
`
`time periods that may overlap. Pharmacists provide support to nursing in
`
`determining the optimal timing of medications such that drugs that are potentially
`
`incompatible are not administered concurrently. Alternatively, a pharmacist would
`
`discuss an alternative drug combination with the treating physician.
`
`48. Pharmacists also know the basic properties of the medications that
`
`they dispense. For example, I am unaware of any IV or injectable product that is
`
`not sterile. In my experience, and I believe a POSA would have the same
`
`experience, every commercial injectable or IV product is sterile. In my opinion,
`
`any POSA reading Berger, Eglen, or Tang, and knowing that these particular
`
`4380159_1.docx
`
`20
`
`Exh. 1026
`
`

`
`
`
`formulations were intended for intravenous infusion into humans or animals,
`
`would understand them to be sterile, even if sterility was not mentioned, otherwise
`
`the drug product would not be safe for intravenous administration. A POSA’s
`
`expectations would be supported by the fact that the other setrons approved in the
`
`U.S. were all sterile. (Exhs.1009, at 1503 (“Sterile Injection for Intravenous (I.V.)
`
`or Intramuscular (I.M.) Administration”); 1010, at 3105 (“Kytril Injection is a
`
`clear, colorless, sterile, nonpyrogenic, aqueous solution
`
`for
`
`intravenous
`
`administration.”); 1011, at 680 (ANZEMET Injection is a clear, colorless,
`
`nonpyrogenic sterile solution for intravenous administration.” (Emphasis added).)
`
`B. Aqueous Intravenous Solution (All Claims Of The ‘942 Patent)
`49. A POSA would appreciate that the most common solvent used in
`
`parenteral products is water. As recognized in Berger, “preferred liquid carriers,
`
`particularly for injection solutions, include water.” (Exh.1006, at 12:50-52.) Berger
`
`also noted that “[i]n general, compounds of Formula I will be administered in
`
`pharmaceutical compositions by one of the following routes . . . or parenteral (e.g.,
`
`intramuscular, intravenous, or subcutaneous.).” (Id. 12:25-29.) Exa

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