`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ETON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2020-00068
`Patent No. 10,583,155
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert J. Kuhn
`Aileen B. Sedman et al., Evidence of Aluminum Loading in Infants
`Receiving Intravenous Therapy, 312 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1337
`(1985)
`Nicholas J. Bishop et al., Aluminum Neurotoxicity in Preterm
`Infants Receiving Intravenous-Feeding Solutions, 336 NEW ENG. J.
`MED. 1557 (1997)
`ELCYS® Label, Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
`Amended Complaint (Redacted), Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v.
`Sandoz, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00645-MN (D. Del. June 1, 2020), ECF
`No. 12
`Amended Complaint, Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Eton
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 20-365-MN (D. Del. July 28, 2020),
`ECF No. 14
`Declaration of Mark Hartman (Redacted), Exela Pharma Sciences,
`LLC v. Sandoz Inc., No. 19-cv-00318-MR (W.D.N.C. Dec. 6,
`2019), ECF No. 26-1
`Megan Fortenberry et al., Evaluating Differences in Aluminum
`Exposure Through Parenteral Nutrition in Neonatal Morbidities, 9
`NUTRIENTS 1249 (2017)
`Kathleen M. Gura, Aluminum Contamination in Parenteral
`Products, 17 CURR. OPIN. CLIN. NUTR. & METAB. CARE 551
`(2014)
`Gordon L. Klein et al., Hypocalcemia Complicating Deferoxamine
`Therapy in an Infant with Parenteral Nutrition-Associated
`Aluminum Overload: Evidence for a Role of Aluminum in the Bone
`Disease of Infants, 9 J. PED. GASTR. & NUTR. 400 (1989)
`Jay M. Mirtallo, Aluminum Contamination of Parenteral Nutrition
`Fluids, 34 J. PARENTERAL & ENTERAL NUTR. 346 (2010)
`Robert L. Poole et al., Aluminum Exposure From Pediatric
`Parenteral Nutrition: Meeting the New FDA Regulation, 32 J.
`PARENTERAL & ENTERAL NUTR. 242 (2008)
`Eton Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amendment No. 1 to Sales/Marketing
`Agreement (Form S-1/A, Exhibit 10.18) (Sept. 25, 2018)
`
`i
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`Patent Owner files this sur-reply pursuant to the Board’s Order of October
`14, 2020 (Paper 7).
`I. THE PETITION LACKS PARTICULARITY
`The Petition continues to suffer from a lack of particularity. Eton says it is
`
`relying on the “four-corners of the Sandoz label” as a printed publication and
`
`admits that the label does not disclose every element of the claimed compositions.
`
`Paper 8 (Petitioner’s Reply (“Reply”)) at 1‒2; Paper 1 (“Petition”) at 52. Eton
`
`relies on the “knowledge of a POSITA” to fill in the gaps. Pet. at 42‒45. But what
`
`is this alleged “knowledge?” This is where the lack of particularity comes in. In
`
`its Petition, Eton relies on the properties of a product as measured shortly after
`
`manufacture by Allergy Labs and before it is accessible to the public. See, e.g.,
`
`Pet. at 50-51. Not only does this conflate two separate categories of prior art, but it
`
`refers to information to which a person of ordinary skill would not have been
`
`privy.
`
`In its Reply, Eton now points to the Geissler Declaration, which includes
`
`aluminum data of an L-cysteine product manufactured in June 2019 (i.e., after
`
`Exela’s invention date) by a different entity (Avara) at a different facility
`
`(Boucherville, Canada) than the “Sandoz Label” of Eton’s Grounds. Ex. 1116 at 6
`
`¶ 12, 44‒45, 48‒49. Eton’s addition of this 2019 Avara product to what it
`
`considers the “Sandoz Label” further compounds the lack of particularity and
`
`1
`
`
`
`undermines Eton’s own “four corners” argument.
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`Moreover, Eton’s reliance on the Geissler Declaration actually supports
`
`Exela’s position. First, the Geissler Declaration shows only “release testing” data
`
`for the Avara product, which means testing done before the Avara product was
`
`released to the public—again, information to which a person of ordinary skill
`
`would not have been privy. Ex. 1116 at 6, 44‒45, 48‒49. Moreover, the only
`
`aluminum data in the Declaration is for an Avara product made in June 2019,
`
`which is after Exela’s invention date and thus not prior art. Id. at 44‒45, 48‒49.
`
`Finally, the Geissler Declaration shows that at release in August 2019—with
`
`nearly 22 months of shelf-life (and aluminum leaching) to go—the Avara product
`
`already contained up to 375 ppb of aluminum. Id. at 44‒45, 48‒49 (August 2019
`
`release testing results for 2 batches of Avara product, both manufactured in June
`
`2019 and expiring in June 2021).
`
`In short, this different, later, non-prior art Avara L-cysteine product had
`
`precisely the same problem as the Sandoz Label product of Eton’s grounds. See
`
`Paper 6 (Patent Owner Preliminary Response (“POPR”)) at 1‒2, 12‒13; Ex. 2001
`
`(Kuhn Decl.) ¶¶ 15, 21‒24. It was the inventors who solved this problem by
`
`developing a stable, low aluminum L-cysteine composition that is safe for
`
`administration to vulnerable infants over the shelf life of the product.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Eton continues to characterize this inventive work as mere “routine
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`optimization” in its Reply. Although the Board explicitly denied Eton’s request to
`
`address its “routine optimization” argument in its Reply, Eton still did so under the
`
`guise of addressing Exela’s particularity argument. Order at 2‒3; Reply at 2‒4.
`
`Eton’s “routine optimization” arguments mischaracterize the problem the
`
`inventors discovered and solved by treating the solution as if it involved two
`
`independent variables: (1) removing head space and dissolved oxygen to prevent
`
`oxidation of L-cysteine1 and (2) storing the product in a coated glass vial to prevent
`
`aluminum from leaching into the composition. See Reply at 2‒4. In its POPR,
`
`Exela showed—based on Eton’s own references—how and why L-cysteine
`
`parenteral solutions are sensitive to an array of multivariate and interrelated
`
`interactions. See POPR at 53‒57. Balancing these interactions is integral to
`
`Exela’s solution to the aluminum problem, which is not “merely the discovery of
`
`an additional benefit of optimizing the Sandoz Label product to prevent oxidation
`
`
`
`1 Eton points out that the Sandoz Label recites a pH of 1.0 to 2.5 and that air
`
`was replaced with nitrogen. Reply at 2 n.5. Yet Eton fails to explain in the
`
`Petition or Reply why a skilled artisan would have been concerned with addressing
`
`oxygen levels further, in the context of that pH range.
`
`3
`
`
`
`as taught by the prior art.” Reply at 4 n.7. Exela also highlighted that Eton
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`provided no specifics as to why a skilled artisan would have arrived at the
`
`particularly claimed amounts of impurities in the claims to achieve the claimed
`
`stability requirement. Id. at 48‒52. Eton still has no answer.
`
`Regarding the vial, multiple references taught using a plastic vial to reduce
`
`aluminum levels. Ex. 2011 (Mirtallo 2010) at 2; Ex. 1008 (Bohrer 2001) at 5.
`
`However, plastic vials are permeable to oxygen. Ex. 1003 (Rabinow Decl.) ¶¶ 59,
`
`67. This is proof that the art failed to appreciate the severity of L-cysteine’s
`
`oxygen sensitivity or the relationship between oxygen levels and aluminum levels.
`
`It also shows that Eton’s focus on optimizing oxygen levels to solve the aluminum
`
`problem is improperly based on the inventors’ own path.
`
`Eton’s “routine optimization” arguments beg the question: given the
`
`seriousness of the aluminum problem with vulnerable infants, why had the
`
`problem persisted for more than a decade? Neither Sandoz nor Eton was able to
`
`solve it despite the incentive. Only in hindsight can Exela’s invention be seen as
`
`“routine optimization” of the Sandoz labeled product.
`
`II. THE OFFICE ACTIONS IN RELATED CASES DO NOT SUPPORT
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Eton’s submission of office actions in Exela’s pending patent applications is
`
`an attempt to distract the Board from the failings of Eton’s Petition. The office
`
`4
`
`
`
`actions do not bolster Eton’s Petition or undermine the validity of the ’155 claims.
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`These are non-final rejections, issued after Exela submitted IDS’s containing
`
`the Petition and all accompanying exhibits to the PTO in Exela’s pending
`
`applications, on claims not at issue in this Petition, and to which Exela intends to
`
`respond and overcome. Exs. 1112-1113. Moreover, the rejections assert
`
`obviousness based on a combination of six references, in contrast to Eton’s
`
`Ground 1 allegation of obviousness based on the combination of the Sandoz Label,
`
`Hospira Label, and “routine optimization.” See id.
`
` On the merits, the references the Examiner relies on do not support
`
`obviousness of the ’155 claims. They support the opposite. For example, the
`
`Hernandez-Sanchez reference recognizes the long-felt and unresolved need for a
`
`low-aluminum product. Ex. 1006 (Hernandez-Sanchez 2013) at 1 (“Aluminum
`
`(Al) toxicity in parenteral nutrition solutions (PNS) has been a problem for decades
`
`and is still unresolved.”); POPR at 2‒3, 9 n.21. After embracing this reference in
`
`its Petition to provide motivation to reduce aluminum, Eton now argues that
`
`Hernandez-Sanchez merely “recognized that the market had failed to demand
`
`manufacturers to meet this need,” and that manufacturers “promptly” met this need
`
`only once FDA demanded it in 2017. Reply at 6. Not only does this contradict
`
`Eton’s earlier reliance on Hernandez-Sanchez, it makes no sense. The FDA, in
`
`2000, issued specific regulations requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce
`
`5
`
`
`
`aluminum levels of parenteral products. 65 F.R. 4103-4111 (made final July 26,
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`2004 at 68 FR 32979). Hernandez-Sanchez, in 2013, and many other publications
`
`acknowledged the seriousness of the aluminum problem for vulnerable infants and
`
`reiterated the need for manufacturers to take action. Yet Eton would have the
`
`Board believe that manufacturers could have readily solved this problem to benefit
`
`human health but chose not to do so until FDA in 2017 forced their hand.
`
`The remaining references do nothing to remedy the deficiencies in Eton’s
`
`Petition. The Nakayama patent teaches glass vials that are coated with a substance
`
`containing aluminum. Ex. 1117 (Nakayama) at 5:20-6:49 (Example 1). Eton
`
`admits that the POSITA would not have opted for this coating to solve the L-
`
`cysteine aluminum problem. Reply at 6. Eton also admits the Examiner
`
`misunderstood the Asquith reference. Id. Just like Eton, the Examiner offers no
`
`reference or reasoned argument for zeroing in on an “oxygen head space problem”
`
`(Ex. 1112 at 6) in trying to solve the decades-old problem of aluminum
`
`contamination in L-cysteine solutions. But, unlike Eton, the Examiner correctly
`
`reads the Sandoz Label as disclosing a “product [that] contains no more than 5,000
`
`mcg/L (5,000 ppb) of aluminum,” not a range of 0-5,000 ppb. Ex. 1112 at 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dorothy P. Whelan/
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26191
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2509
`Facsimile: (877) 769-7945
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0007PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00068
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on October
`
`26, 2020, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response was provided via email
`
`to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Eugene Goryunov
`Judy K. He
`Jeff Wolfson
`Haynes and Boone LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Email: ralph.gabric.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Email: eugene.goryunov.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Email: judy.he.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Email: jeff.wolfson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`