`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`_______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Corcept’s arguments regarding the definition of a POSA betray a
`misunderstanding of the obviousness inquiry. ................................................ 3
`III. A POSA would have arrived at the claimed 600-mg dose through
`routine optimization. ........................................................................................ 8
`A. A POSA would have reasonably expected success in optimizing
`the dose by conducting a drug-drug interaction study. ......................... 8
`1.
`Clinical DDI studies are routine, and Corcept’s DDI
`study was no exception. .............................................................. 8
`A POSA would have reasonably expected to identify the
`optimal dose of mifepristone through a DDI study. ................. 13
`Corcept’s contrary arguments lack merit. ........................................... 17
`1.
`FDA recommended permitting co-administration of
`strong CYP3A inhibitors and 300 mg mifepristone and
`contemplated increasing the permitted dose pending the
`results of the DDI study. ........................................................... 17
`Dunnigan would not have led a POSA to expect that co-
`administering strong CYP3A inhibitors with 600 mg
`mifepristone would be dangerous. ............................................ 19
`The unpredictability of the DDI simply reinforces the
`motivation to perform a clinical DDI study. ............................. 21
`IV. Corcept’s suggestion that obviousness requires the ability to predict
`the exact dosing without experimentation is legally incorrect. ..................... 24
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Belanoff, J.K., “Concomitant Administration Of Glucocorticoid
`Receptor Modulators And CYP3A Inhibitors,” U.S. Patent No.
`10,195,214 B2 (filed June 19, 2017; issued February 5, 2019)
`Declaration of David J. Greenblatt, M.D.
`Curriculum Vitae for David J. Greenblatt. M.D.
`Korlym Label (2012)
`Lee et al., Office of Clinical Pharmacology Review NDA 20687
`(Addendum, KorlymTM, Mifepristone) (2012)
`FDA Approval Letter for Korlym (mifepristone) tablets, NDA
`20217, dated February 17, 2012
`Tsunoda, S.M., et al., “Differentiation of intestinal and hepatic
`cytochrome P450 3A activity with use of midazolam as an in vivo
`probe: Effect of ketoconazole,” Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 66(5): 461–
`471 (1999)
`Ullmann, A., et al., “Method For Treating Cushing’s Syndrome,”
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0261693 A1 (filed
`October 13, 2008; published October 14, 2010)
`Sartor, O. and Cutler, G.B., “Mifepristone: Treatment of Cushing’s
`Syndrome,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 39(2): 506–510
`(1996)
`Pozza, C., et al., “Management Strategies for Aggressive Cushing’s
`Syndrome: From Macroadenomas to Ectopics,” J. Oncol. 109: 1–9
`(2012)
`Castinetti, F., “Medical Treatment of Cushing’s Syndrome:
`Glucocorticoid Receptor Antagonists and Mifepristone,”
`Neuroendocrinology 92(suppl. 1): 125–130 (2010)
`Nieman, L.K., “Successful Treatment of Cushing's Syndrome with
`the Glucocorticoid Antagonist RU 486*,” J. Clin. Endocrinol.
`Metab. 61(3): 536–540 (1985)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Description
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Brogden, R.N., et al., ” Mifepristone A Review of its
`Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Properties, and Therapeutic
`Potential,” Drugs 45(3): 384–409 (1993)
`Molitch. M.E., “Current approaches to the pharmacological
`management of Cushing’s disease,” Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 408:
`185–189 (2015)
`Sitruk-Ware, R. and Spitz, I.M., “Pharmacological properties of
`mifepristone: toxicology and safety in animal and human studies,”
`Contraception 68: 409–420 (2003)
`Heikinheimo, O., “Pharmacokinetics of The Antiprogesterone RU
`486 in Women During Multiple Dose Administration,” J. Steriod.
`Biochem. 32(1A): 21–25 (1989)
`Heikinheimo, O., et al., “The pharmacokinetics of mifepristone in
`humans reveal insights into differential mechanisms of antiprogestin
`action,” Contraception 68: 421–426 (2003)
`Blasey, C.M., et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Mifepristone for the
`Treatment of Psychotic Depression,” J. Clin. Psychopharmacol.
`31:436–440 (2011)
`Belanoff, J.K., “Optimizing Mifepristone Levels in Plasma Serum
`of Patients Suffering from Mental Disorders Treatable with
`Glucocorticoid Receptor Antagonists,” U.S. Patent No. 8,921,348
`B2 (filed October 29, 2013; issued December 30, 2014)
`Belanoff, J.K., “Optimizing Mifepristone Levels in Plasma Serum
`of Patients Suffering from Mental Disorders Treatable with
`Glucocorticod Receptor Antagonists,” U.S. Patent No. 8.598,149 B2
`(filed August 27, 2008; issued December 3, 2013)
`Castinetti, F., et al., “Merits and pitfalls of mifepristone in
`Cushing’s syndrome,” Eur. J. Endocrinol.160: 1003–1010 (2009)
`Jang, G.R., et al., “Identification of CYP3A4 as the Principal
`Enzyme Catalyzing Mifepristone (RU 486) Oxidation in Human
`Liver Microsomes,” Biochem. Pharmacol. 52: 753–761 (1996)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Description
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Greenblatt, D., “In Vitro Prediction of Clinical Drug Interactions
`With CYP3A Substrates: We Are Not There Yet,” Clin. Pharm.
`Ther. 95(2): 133–135 (2014)
`Greenblatt, D.J., et al., “Mechanism of cytochrome P450-3A
`inhibition by ketoconazole,” J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 63: 214–221
`(2011)
`Greenblatt, D.J. and von Moltke, L.L., “Clinical Studies of Drug-
`Drug Interactions: Design and Interpretation,” in Enzyme- and
`Transporter-Based Drug-Drug Interactions: Progress and Future
`Challenges. Pang, K.S. et al., ed., pp. 625–649, New York,
`Springer: (2010)
`Greenblatt, D.J., et al., “The CYP3 Family” in Cytochromes P450:
`Role in the Metabolism and Toxicity of Drugs and other
`Xenobiotics. Ionnides, C., ed., pp. 354–383, Royal Society of
`Chemistry: (2008)
`Ohno, Y., et al., “General Framework for the Quantitative
`Prediction of CYP3A4-Mediated Oral Drug Interactions Based on
`the AUC Increase by Coadministration of Standard Drugs,” Clin.
`Pharmacokinet. 46(8): 681–696 (2007)
`Archive History of NCT00936741 History of Changes for Study:
`NCT00936741 An Extension Study of CORLUX in the Treatment
`of Endogenous Cushing's Syndrome (July 9, 2009) on
`ClinicalTrials.gov
`Fleseriu, M., et al., “Mifepristone, a Glucocorticoid Receptor
`Antagonist, Produces Clinical and Metabolic Benefits in Patients
`with Cushing’s Syndrome,” J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
`97(6):2039–2049 (2012)
`Morgan, F.H. and Laufgraben, M.J., “Mifepristone for Management
`of Cushing’s Syndrome,” Pharmacotherapy 33(3):319–329 (2013)
`Schteingart, D.E., “Drugs in the medical treatment of Cushing's
`syndrome,” Expert Opin. Emerging Drugs 14(4):661–671 (2009)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Description
`
`Dang, C.N. and Trainor, P., “Pharmacological Management of
`Cushing’s Syndrome: An Update,” Arq. Bras. Endocrinol. Metab.
`51(8):1339–1348 (2007)
`Zhang, L., et al., “Predicting Drug–Drug Interactions: An FDA
`Perspective,” The AAPS Journal 11(2): 300–306 (2009)
`Nguyen, D. and Minze, S., “Effects of Ketoconazole on the
`Pharmacokinetics of Mifepristone, a Competitive Glucocorticoid
`Receptor Antagonist, in Healthy Men,” Adv. Ther. 34:2371–2385
`(2017)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 B2
`Korlym Label Revised: 05/2017 (2017)
`Kaesar, B., et al., “Drug-Drug Interaction Study of Ketoconazole
`and Ritonavir-Boosted Saquinavir,” Antimicrobial Agents and
`Chemotherapy 53(2): 609–614 (2009)
`Truong, H.L.., et al., “Budget impact of pasireotide for the treatment
`of Cushing’s disease, a rare endocrine disorder associated with
`considerable comorbidities,” J. Med. Economics 17(4): 299–295
`(2014)
`Belanoff, J. and Gross, C., “Optimizing Mifepristone Levels for
`Cushing's Patients,” U.S. Patent No. 9,943,526 B2 (filed April 20,
`2016; issued April 17, 2018)
`“A Guide to Drug Safety Terms,” FDA Consumer Health
`Information / U. S. Food and Drug Administration, (2012)
`downloaded from www.tinyurl.com/y6oao2sj
`“Guidance for Industry Drug Interaction Studies — Study Design,
`Data Analysis, and Implications for Dosing and Labeling,” U.S.
`Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
`Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).,
`Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) (2006)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,943,526 B2
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Description
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated Announces FDA Approval of
`Korlym(TM) (Mifepristone): First and Only Approved Medication
`for Cushing's Syndrome Patients,” Ex. 99 from Corcept
`Therapeutics Press Release (2012), downloaded from
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1088856/0001193125123
`47804/d357533d10q.htm
`Form 8-K, Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (2012), downloaded from
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1088856/0001102624120
`00138/corcepttherapeutics8k.htm
`Form 10-Q, Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (2012), downloaded from
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1088856/0001102624120
`00138/corcepttherapeuticsincorpora.htm
`Greenblatt, D.J, et al., “Ketoconazole inhibition of triazolam and
`alprazolam clearance: Differential kinetic and dynamic
`consequences,” Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 64(3):237–247 (1998)
`Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products, downloaded from
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/
`Korlym (mifepristone) Tablets, 300 mg. 05 April 2016.[
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107_
`korlym_toc.cfm] Internet Archive.
`[https://web.archive.org/web/20160405152243/https://www.accessd
`ata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107_korlym_toc.cfm]
`Center For Drug Evaluation and Research. Application Number:
`202107Origls000.Labeling.
`[http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107O
`rig1s000Lbl.pdf] Internet Archive.
`[https://web.archive.org/web/20170217054603/http://www.accessda
`ta.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107Orig1s000Lbl.pdf]
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Description
`
`Center For Drug Evaluation and Research. Application Number:
`202107Orig1s000.Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceuticals
`Review(s). 18 February 2017.
`[http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107O
`rig1s000ClinPharmR.pdf] Internet Archive.
`[https://web.archive.org/web/20170218063600/http://www.accessda
`ta.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107Orig1s000ClinPharmR
`.pdf]
`Center For Drug Evaluation and Research. Application Number:
`202107Orig1s000. Approval Letter. 17 February 2017.
`[http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107O
`rig1s000Approv.pdf]. Internet Archive.
`[https://web.archive.org/web/20170217191413/http://www.accessda
`ta.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107Orig1s000Approv.pdf]
`Guidance for Industry. Drug Interaction Studies-Study Design, Data
`Analysis, and Implications for Dosing and Labeling. 02 November
`2016. [http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6695dft.pdf] Internet
`Archive.
`[https://web.archive.org/web/20061102162753/http://www.fda.gov/
`cder/guidance/6695dft.pdf]
`FDA Guidance Documents, downloaded from
`https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/guidances/
`Declaration of Atul Kaushik
`Wilkinson, G., “Pharmacokinetics The Dynamics of Drug
`Absorption, Distribution and Elimination,” in Goodman & Gilmans’
`The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, Tenth Edition,
`Hardman, J., ed., pp. 3–29, McGraw-Hill, New York (2001)
`Korlym Label. 04 March 2012.[
`http://www.corcept.com/prescribinginfo.pdf] _Internet Archive_.
`[https://web.archive.org/web/20120304133653/www.corcept.com/pr
`escribinginfo.pdf]
`Greenblatt, D.J. and Koch-Weser, J., “Clinical Pharmacokinetics,”
`NEJM 293:702–705 (1975)
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Description
`
`1058
`
`1059
`1060
`1061
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`1068
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`Greenblatt, D.J. and Abourjaily, P.N., “Pharmacokinetics and
`Pharmacodynamics for Medical Students:A Proposed Course
`Outline,” J. Clin. Pharmacol. 56(10): 1180–1195 (2016)
`Friedman, H. and Greenblatt, D.J., “Rational Therapeutic Drug
`Monitoring,” JAMA 256(16): 2227–2233 (1986)
`Declaration of J.C. Rozendaal
`Declaration of Uma N. Everett
`Declaration of William H. Milliken
`Consolidation and Scheduling Order, Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. v.
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-03632 (D.N.J.,
`Feb. 21, 2019)
`Proposed Pretrial Scheduling Order, Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. v.
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-03632 (D.N.J.,
`Feb. 7, 2019)
`Parks, M.H., Summary Review for Regulatory Action NDA 202107
`(KorlymTM, Mifepristone) (2012) [https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/
`drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/202107Orig1s000SumR.pdf]
`Weber, J.M, et al., Other Review(s) NDA 202107 (KorlymTM,
`Mifepristone) (2012) [https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_
`docs/nda/2012/202107Orig1s000OtherR.pdf]
`Second Declaration of David J. Greenblatt, M.D.
`Declaration of Adrian Dobs, M.D.
`Deposition Transcript of Deposition of Ty Carroll, M.D., Case
`PGR2019-00048 (May 8, 2020)
`Deposition Transcript of Deposition of F. Peter Guengerich, M.D.,
`Case PGR2019-00048 (May 14, 2020)
`Deposition Transcript of Deposition of Laurence Katznelson, M.D.,
`Case PGR2019-00048 (May 26, 2020)
`Dat Nguyen LinkedIn Profile [https://www.linkedin.com/in/dat-
`nguyen-7617a04/]
`Banankhah, P.A., et al., “Ketoconazole-Associated Liver Injury in
`Drug-Drug Interaction Studies in Healthy Volunteers.,” Journal of
`Clinical Pharmacology 56(10):1196–1202 (2016)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`Teva
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Description
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`Outeiro, N., et al., “No Increased Risk of Ketoconazole Toxicity in
`Drug-Drug Interaction Studies,” J. Clin. Pharmacol. 56(10):1203–
`1211 (2016)
`Van der Lelij, A. J., Aspects of Medical Therapy of Neuroendocrine
`Disorders, Erasmus University Rotterdam
`Email from Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National Library of the
`Netherlands to William Milliken dated May 7, 2020
`Eramus University Repository listing for Van der Lelij, A. J.,
`“Aspects of Medical Therapy of Neuroendocrine Disorders”
`[https://repub.eur.nl/pub/39782] last accessed May 21, 2020
`Schumacher, C., “Pharmaceutical combination of an aldosterone
`synthase inhibitor and a glucocorticoid receptor antagonist or a
`cortisol synthesis inhibitor or a corticotropin releasing factor
`antagonist,” European Patent Application No. 1886695 A1 (filed
`June 27, 2006; published February 13, 2008)
`Newell-Price, J., “Medicament and Method of Diagnosis,” US
`Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0067264 A1 (filed
`November 13, 2015; published March 10, 2016)
`Locniskar, A., et al., “Interaction of Diazepam with Famotidine and
`Cimetidine, Two H2-Receptor Antagonists,” J. Clin. Pharmacol.
`26(4): 299–303 (1986)
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Introduction
`The ’214 patent claims a method of treating Cushing’s syndrome by co-
`
`administering 600 mg mifepristone and a strong CYP3A inhibitor. The prior-art
`
`2012 Korlym Label undisputedly discloses every limitation of the challenged
`
`claims except the specific dose of mifepristone. And, as the Board already
`
`concluded, “arriving at the claimed dosage…would have been the product of
`
`routine optimization.” DI, 23. Indeed, the prior art provides an explicit roadmap for
`
`that routine optimization: Lee and associated documents in Korlym’s Drug
`
`Approval Package disclose that FDA instructed Corcept to run a routine drug-drug
`
`interaction study to optimize the dose. It is difficult to imagine a more clear-cut
`
`obviousness case. There is nothing inventive about optimizing dosing of a drug
`
`where the prior art provides both the motivation and the means to do so.
`
`Corcept’s responses are largely beside the point because they focus on the
`
`wrong question. Corcept contends that a clinician following the 2012 Korlym
`
`Label would not have deviated from the label’s instruction to limit mifepristone to
`
`300 mg per day when co-administered with strong CYP3A inhibitors. But the
`
`question is not what a physician treating Cushing’s syndrome would have done
`
`based on the label alone; rather, it is what a POSA instructed to optimize the dose
`
`would have done in light of all prior art. The art provides a ready answer: run a
`
`clinical DDI study. And the evidence shows that a POSA would have expected
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such a study to be successful.
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Corcept’s attempts to engage with the real issues fare no better. Corcept
`
`argues that the claimed invention produced unexpected results because a POSA
`
`would have expected co-administration of strong CYP3A inhibitors with more than
`
`300 mg mifepristone to be dangerous. The evidence does not support this theory.
`
`As Teva’s expert Dr. Greenblatt—whose scholarship formed the principal basis for
`
`Corcept’s unexpected-results arguments during prosecution—has explained, DDIs
`
`involving CYP3A inhibitors and CYP3A substrates are unpredictable. There is no
`
`a priori expectation about the extent or clinical significance of a given DDI: as
`
`Corcept’s own expert Dr. Guengerich admitted, “that’s why you do these studies.”
`
`TEVA1070, 65:14–18 (emphasis added).
`
`Corcept, relying on testimony from Dr. Guengerich, also claims that clinical
`
`DDI studies are not “routine” because their designs involve choices among
`
`different variables, such as the identity of the CYP3A inhibitor, the patient
`
`population, etc. These studies may appear complicated to Dr. Guengerich, who has
`
`never designed such a study nor served as a principal investigator on one. Id.,
`
`20:6–23:17. But the only expert in this proceeding who does design these studies—
`
`Dr. Greenblatt—explains that clinical DDI studies are routine. TEVA1067, ¶8;
`
`TEVA1002, ¶70. And the particular DDI study Corcept ran was no exception.
`
`Corcept simply did what the prior art said to do and claimed the results.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`At bottom, Corcept’s patentability arguments rest on the premise that, for a
`
`
`
`method claim involving dosing to be obvious, a POSA must be able to predict the
`
`exact optimized dose in advance. That is wrong. Obviousness does not require
`
`absolute predictability. And “it cannot be the case that any new dosage of co-
`
`administered mifepristone is patentable simply because one must test to quantify
`
`the extent of a recognized drug-drug interaction, especially when the prior art
`
`expressly teaches to conduct such testing.” DI, 21. Here, a POSA would have
`
`followed the prior-art instructions to perform a clinical DDI study and would have
`
`reasonably expected to arrive at the claimed 600-mg dose. The claims are obvious.
`
`II. Corcept’s arguments regarding the definition of a POSA betray a
`misunderstanding of the obviousness inquiry.
`A. A determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art depends on
`
`several factors, among them “the educational level of the inventor,” the “type of
`
`problems encountered in the art,” the sophistication of relevant technology, and the
`
`educational level of those in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501
`
`F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). At bottom, the key inquiry is the probable skill
`
`level of one investigating “the problem the invention…was trying to solve.” Id. at
`
`1257.
`
`Here, that “problem” was determining the extent and clinical significance of
`
`the DDI between mifepristone and strong CYP3A inhibitors. TEVA1001, 3:40–57;
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`TEVA1035, 339 (“[T]he present invention arose out of our investigations into the
`
`
`
`safety of co-administering mifepristone along with CYP3A inhibitors….”).
`
`Accordingly, as Dr. Greenblatt explains, TEVA1002, ¶18, a POSA could have had
`
`experience with drug-drug interactions and/or DDI studies, and could—though
`
`need not—have experience treating Cushing’s syndrome. Accord DI, 6. Corcept
`
`itself recognized this during prosecution by relying on the scholarship of Dr.
`
`Greenblatt, who is not an endocrinologist but who is a preeminent authority on
`
`DDIs involving strong CYP3A inhibitors. See, e.g., TEVA1035, 542
`
`(characterizing the interaction between strong CYP3A inhibitors and CYP3A
`
`substrates as “the Greenblatt effect” after Dr. Greenblatt).1
`
`B. Now, incredibly, Corcept asserts that Dr. Greenblatt—the centerpiece
`
`of Corcept’s patentability arguments during prosecution—is not even a POSA
`
`because he lacks experience treating Cushing’s syndrome. POR, 37–38. Corcept
`
`and its experts contend that the POSA “requires a medical professional with
`
`experience treating Cushing’s syndrome patients with mifepristone”—i.e., an
`
`endocrinologist. POR, 20–21; TEVA1069, 45:21–46:3, 49:9–50:6; TEVA1071,
`
`38:19–42:22.
`
`
`1 Corcept also characterized “FDA” (which, of course, likewise does not
`
`treat Cushing’s syndrome) as a POSA. TEVA1035, 340.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`This argument is readily refuted by the relevant art and the patent itself. The
`
`
`
`lead author of the paper disclosing the results of Corcept’s mifepristone-
`
`ketoconazole DDI study (the basis for the patent) is a pharmacist with experience
`
`managing clinical trials, not an endocrinologist. TEVA1072. Nor would the
`
`patent’s inventor qualify as a POSA under Corcept’s definition. Dr. Belanoff, as
`
`Corcept’s expert Dr. Carroll admitted, is a psychiatrist. TEVA1069, 54:3–4; but
`
`see Daiichi, 501 F.3d at 1257 (level of skill in the art should reflect background of
`
`inventor); Alza Corp. v. Andrz Pharm., LLC, 607 F. Supp. 2d 614, 637 (D. Del.
`
`2009) (same).2
`
`C.
`
`To make matters worse, Corcept has misapplied its own definition of
`
`a POSA. While Corcept purports to at least allow a pharmacologist on the team,
`
`POR, 20, Corcept’s POSA in fact looks at the obviousness question exclusively
`
`from the perspective of a practicing endocrinologist and need not even consider the
`
`views of those (like Dr. Greenblatt) with expertise in clinical DDI studies. See
`
`TEVA1069, 50:7–51:9; TEVA1071, 49:22–52:24. That cannot be correct: a
`
`clinical DDI study—as FDA requested—is precisely how Corcept arrived at the
`
`
`2 Neither Dr. Carroll nor Dr. Katznelson considered Dr. Belanoff’s
`
`background in forming their definition of a POSA. TEVA1069, 54:5–15;
`
`TEVA1071, 43:22–44:2.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`purported invention. The ’214 patent is directed to solving a drug-drug interaction
`
`
`
`problem. A POSA accordingly would have needed experience with DDI studies, or
`
`would have sought input from someone with such experience. TEVA1002, ¶18;
`
`see Daiichi, 501 F.3d at 1255–57 (concluding that POSA for a patent claiming
`
`methods of treating ear infections by administering ofloxacin required experience
`
`“developing pharmaceutical formulations and treatment methods for the ear” and
`
`rejecting district court’s conclusion that the POSA would be merely a general
`
`practitioner because “while a general practitioner could (and would) prescribe the
`
`invention of the…patent to treat ear infections, he would not have the training or
`
`knowledge to develop the claimed compound absent some specialty training”).
`
`Many of Corcept’s patentability arguments are non sequiturs even under
`
`Corcept’s definition of a POSA because they fail to appreciate this fundamental
`
`point. For example, Corcept, relying on Drs. Carroll and Katznelson—
`
`endocrinologists and paid Corcept speakers for the last decade, TEVA1069, 24:7–
`
`24; TEVA1071, 19:7–21:5—argues that a clinician treating Cushing’s syndrome
`
`would not have administered more than 300 mg mifepristone based on the 2012
`
`Korlym Label. E.g., POR, 16, 36–41; EX2057; EX2058. Indeed, Corcept’s
`
`clinicians go so far as to say that there could have been no “experimentation” with
`
`doses above 300 mg because here “the ‘experiment’ is the medical treatment of a
`
`human being that could incur potentially life-threatening side effects.” EX2057,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`¶92; EX2058, ¶99.
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`But, regardless of whose definition of a POSA is applied, the question is not
`
`whether a clinician would have administered a patient more than 300 mg
`
`mifepristone with a strong CYP3A inhibitor based on the 2012 Korlym Label. The
`
`question, rather, is whether someone trying to solve the dose-optimization problem
`
`would have experimented with doses of mifepristone exceeding 300 mg to
`
`“provide more therapeutic options available to Cushing’s patients and appropriate
`
`labeling of mifepristone when co-administered with CYP3A inhibitors.”
`
`TEVA1005, 5. The “experiment” is not “medical treatment of a human being”; it is
`
`a routine DDI study. The Board should accord the opinions of Drs. Carroll and
`
`Katznelson—and Corcept’s arguments based on those opinions—no weight
`
`because they approach the obviousness inquiry exclusively from the perspective of
`
`a practicing clinician, with no consideration of what one with experience involving
`
`DDIs would have done. See TEVA1069, 60:4–61:23, 63:10–64:14, 66:4–23 (Dr.
`
`Carroll admitting that he offered his opinions “based on my definition of a POSA”
`
`and “can’t really give any opinion” from the perspective of Dr. Greenblatt’s
`
`POSA); TEVA1071, 49:22–52:24 (Dr. Katznelson admitting that he did not
`
`consider the viewpoint of one with expertise in studying DDIs).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`III. A POSA would have arrived at the claimed 600-mg dose through
`routine optimization.
`Corcept does not and cannot dispute that a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to optimize the dosing of mifepristone when co-administered with
`
`strong CYP3A inhibitors. POR, 29. As the Board observed, Lee “expressly
`
`recommends conducting studies to optimize dosing,” and FDA Guidance provides
`
`“a method for” conducting such studies. DI, 25, 34. The only question, therefore, is
`
`whether a POSA would have reasonably expected success in arriving at the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`The answer is yes. Corcept did exactly what the prior art instructed: it ran a
`
`clinical DDI study involving mifepristone and ketoconazole. Such studies are
`
`routine in the art, and Corcept’s study was no exception. The answer Corcept’s
`
`study produced—that one could treat Cushing’s syndrome by co-administering 600
`
`mg mifepristone with a strong CYP3A inhibitor—was not predictable with
`
`absolute precision in advance, but it was well within the range of outcomes a
`
`POSA would have expected. TEVA1002, ¶71.
`
`A. A POSA would have reasonably expected success in optimizing
`the dose by conducting a drug-drug interaction study.
`1.
`Clinical DDI studies are routine, and Corcept’s DDI study
`was no exception.
`As Dr. Greenblatt explained and the Board agreed, clinical DDI
`
`a.
`
`studies were routine in the art before March 2017. DI, 26; TEVA1002, ¶70;
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`TEVA1067, ¶8. Indeed, FDA’s Guidance for Industry on DDI studies—published
`
`
`
`in 2006—offers extensive instructions to POSAs concerning design and analysis of
`
`clinical DDI studies. TEVA1041. Accordingly, conducting such a study would
`
`have been well within a POSA’s abilities.
`
`Corcept offers two rejoinders; both lack merit.
`
`First, Corcept attacks FDA Guidance as “a ‘draft guidance’ document
`
`distributed by FDA ‘for comment purposes only.’” POR, 28. Many FDA Guidance
`
`documents are labeled “drafts,” but they still provide relevant and useful
`
`information to those in the art. TEVA1067, ¶13 n.1; TEVA1068, ¶¶17–18. Indeed,
`
`pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for FDA approval ignore FDA
`
`Guidance documents at their peril. TEVA1067, ¶13 n.1; TEVA1068, ¶¶17–18.
`
`Corcept itself relied on FDA’s draft DDI guidance during prosecution. TEVA1035,
`
`362.
`
`Second, Corcept, relying on Dr. Guengerich’s testimony, argues that clinical
`
`DDI studies are complicated and not “routine” because they involve “numerous
`
`choices”: “study design…, dosing regimen combinations…, the strong CYP3A
`
`inhibitor, dose of mifepristone, dose of CYP3A inhibitor, whether the study is
`
`blinded or un-blinded, and the patient population.” POR, 62; EX2056, ¶76. But,
`
`within the bounds of responsible scientific practice, a POSA’s choice among the
`
`variables would not be expected to influence the results of the study. TEVA1067,
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`¶¶9–21. There may be different ways to run DDI studies, but that does not make
`
`
`
`those studies complicated. Id.
`
`In any event, the purported list of “variables” is a makeweight. There are far
`
`fewer variables than Dr. Guengerich suggests. The prior art itself resolves many of
`
`the choices. FDA itself selected ketoconazole as the strong CYP3A inhibitor for
`
`Corcept’s DDI study, since there was a “high potential of [ketoconazole’s]
`
`concomitant use with mifepristone.” TEVA1005, 4–5. FDA likewise chose the
`
`patient population (healthy subjects). TEVA1066, 23. A POSA would have known
`
`this based on the Korlym Drug Approval Package.
`
`FDA Guidance provides further illumination, noting that “[s]tudies can
`
`usually be open label (unblinded)” and instructing that “[t]he inhibiting/inducing
`
`drugs and the substrates should be dosed so that the exposures of both drugs are
`
`relevant to their clinical use.” TEVA1041, 10. Dr. Guengerich agreed with this
`
`statement. TEVA1070, 104:20–105:3. As to the dose of ketoconazole, Dr.
`
`Guengerich admits that ketoconazole is a “widely used” index inhibitor whose
`
`inhibition is not “dose- or concentration-dependent.” EX2056, ¶84. This means
`
`both that the chosen dose of ketoconazole is irrelevant and that the results of a DDI
`
`study using ketoconazole would necessarily “have been applicable to other strong
`
`CYP3A inhibitors.” Id. As to the mifepristone dose, it was known that 300 mg
`
`could be co-administered with ketoconazole. TEVA1004, 1. Accordingly, as Dr.
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`Katznelson admitted, since “600 mg is the next dose escalation of
`
`
`
`mifepristone…that would be the dose that would need to be studied.” TEVA1071,
`
`81:8–11; see TEVA1067, ¶16; TEVA1068, ¶27. That is exactly what Corcept did.
`
`TEVA1001, 60:43–51.
`
`This leaves only study design. FDA Guidance explains that “[a] study can
`
`use a randomized crossover…a one-sequence crossover…, or a parallel design.”
`
`TEVA1041, 9. As Dr. Greenblatt explains, crossover designs3 (as Corcept chose,
`
`TEVA1001, 60:43–56) are generally preferred for DDI studies because they allow
`
`patients to serve as their own controls and therefore eliminate confounding factors
`
`introduced by inter-patient variability in pharmacokinetics. TEVA1067, ¶10. But
`
`parallel designs “are still perfectly adequate when the circumstances call for them.”
`
`Id. The “study design” variable thus does not unduly complicate the picture either.
`
`In short, Corcept’s attempt to make routine clinical DDI studies look
`
`complicated fails. The purported array of variables involved may appear
`
`bewildering to Dr. Guengerich, who has never designed a clinical DDI study.
`
`TEVA1070, 20:6–23:17; see TEVA1069, 20:18