throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00904
`Patent No. 6,774,122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,774,122
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. NOTICES, STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT OF FEES .............................. 4
`
`A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................... 4
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................ 4
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 6
`
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................. 7
`
`E. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................ 7
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`F. Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................ 7
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ...... 7
`
`INNOPHARMA’S GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ARE
`DISTINCT FROM THOSE PRESENTED BY MYLAN ............................... 9
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘122 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY . 12
`
`A. The ‘122 Patent ...................................................................................... 12
`
`B. The Prosecution History ........................................................................ 14
`
`1. The Prosecution History of the ‘122 Patent ................................... 14
`
`2. The Prosecution History of Related Applications ......................... 15
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 17
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17
`
`A. “Attained” .............................................................................................. 18
`
`B. “Therapeutically Significant” ................................................................ 18
`
`C. “Whereby a therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant
`concentration of at least 2.5 ngml-1 is attained for at least 2 weeks after
`injection” ................................................................................................ 18
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VIII. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................... 19
`
`A. The Prior Art Discloses All Limitations of the Challenged Claims ...... 19
`
`1. Howell Closely Matches the Claimed Invention ........................... 19
`
`2. McLeskey Discloses the Claimed Formulation and Was Not a
`“Treatment Failure” ....................................................................... 22
`
`3. O’Regan Confirms the Route of Administration ........................... 26
`
`B. AstraZeneca’s Attempts to Detract From These Prior Art Teachings
`Fail ......................................................................................................... 26
`
`1. AstraZeneca’s Purported “Lead Compound” Analysis is
`Inapplicable .................................................................................... 27
`
`2. AstraZeneca’s Efficacy Arguments Are Contrary to Law ............. 29
`
`3. AstraZeneca’s Claims of Unpredictability Are Specious .............. 30
`
`a. The Pharmacokinetic Limitations Are Expressly Disclosed in
`the Prior Art ............................................................................ 30
`
`b.
`
`It Was Well-Known That Fulvestrant Was Administered
`Intramuscularly ....................................................................... 32
`
`c. The Claimed Combination of Excipients Were Neither
`Unexpected Nor Surprising .................................................... 33
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE .............. 36
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 Are Obvious Over Howell ................. 36
`
`1. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Develop a Formulation
`to Achieve the Results Reported in Howell ................................... 36
`
`2. A POSA Would Have A Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Developing a Formulation to Achieve the Howell Results. .......... 39
`
`3. Every Limitation Is Disclosed By Howell And The Knowledge of
`a POSA. .......................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 Are Obvious Over Howell and
`McLeskey ............................................................................................... 44
`
`1. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Howell and
`McLeskey ....................................................................................... 44
`
`a. The Target Fulvestrant Concentration in Howell Would Have
`Led a Skilled Formulator to McLeskey.................................. 44
`
` b. The Record Confirms the Motivation to Combine Howell and
` McLeskey. ..............................................................................47
`
`2. A POSA Would Have A Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Administering the McLeskey Formulation Intramuscularly to
`Achieve the Results Reported in Howell ....................................... 51
`
`3. Each and Every Limitation Is Disclosed By the Combination of
`Howell and McLeskey ................................................................... 57
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 Are Obvious Over Howell, McLeskey,
`and O’Regan .......................................................................................... 58
`
`1. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Howell,
`McLeskey, and O’Regan ................................................................ 59
`
`2. A POSA Would Have A Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining Howell, McLeskey, and O’Regan ............................... 59
`
`3. Each and Every Limitation Is Disclosed By the Combination of
`Howell, McLeskey, and O’Regan .................................................. 60
`
`X.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS, FAIL TO OVERCOME THE
`EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUSNESS. ............................................................... 62
`
`A. There Is No Nexus to the Claimed Invention ........................................ 62
`
`B. AstraZeneca’s Secondary Considerations Arguments Fail ................... 64
`
`1. AstraZeneca Cannot Show Long-Felt Need .................................. 64
`
`2. The Results Were Not Unexpected ................................................ 65
`
`a. Dr. Robertson’s Arguments Are Contradicted By His Own
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Published Work. ..................................................................... 65
`
`b. The Release Profile and Effect of Benzyl Benzoate Were
`Expected ................................................................................. 66
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 50
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 956 (2015) .................. 63
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`726 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 29
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 40
`
`AstraZeneca LP v. Breath Ltd.,
`603 F. App’x 999 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 64
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Agila Specialties, Inc.,
`No. 1:15-cv-06039-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) ............................................................ 4
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-926-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) ................................................................ 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA,
`No. 1:15-cv-615 (D.N.J.) ...................................................................................... 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. InnoPharma, Inc.,
`No. 1:16-cv-894-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) ................................................................ 4
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. InnoPharma Licensing LLC,
`No. 1:16-cv-1962-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) .......................................................... 4, 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Mylan Institutional LLC,
`No. 1:16-cv-4612-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) .............................................................. 5
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Mylan Pharms. Inc,
`No. 1:15-cv-7009-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) .............................................................. 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Sagent Pharms., Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-05539-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) ............................................................ 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Sandoz Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-03547-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) ............................................................ 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc.,
`No. 1:10-cv-18-JMS-KMW (D. Del.) .................................................................. 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`No. 1:15-cv-7889-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.) .............................................................. 5
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`743 F. Supp. 2d 305 (D. Del. 2010), aff’d, 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 35
`
`Cubist Pharms., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2393 (2016) .............. 56
`
`Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc.,
`413 F. App’x 289 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 51
`
`In re Ethicon, Inc.,
`844 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 28, 31
`
`Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`748 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 3, 29
`
`In re Huai-Hung Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 63
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 47
`
`Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.,
`808 F.3d 829 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
`874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 28
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 63
`
`Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int’l Distrib., Ltd.,
`526 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 32
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 64
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 41, 64
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Purdue Pharma Prods. L.P. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`377 F. App’x 978 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 27
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea,
`721 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Unigene Laboratories., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,774,122 (“the ‘122 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002 Complaint filed in AstraZeneca Pharms. LP et al. v.
`InnoPharma, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-894 (D.N.J.)
`
`Proof of Service in AstraZeneca Pharms. LP et al. v.
`InnoPharma, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-894 (D.N.J.)
`
`Exhibit 1004 Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice, AstraZeneca Pharms.
`LP et al. v. InnoPharma, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-894 (D.N.J.)
`
`Complaint filed in AstraZeneca Pharms. LP et al. v. InnoPharma
`Licensing, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-1962 (D.N.J.)
`
`Exhibit 1006 Copy of Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 6,774,122
`(downloaded from PAIR)
`
`Exhibit 1007 Howell et al., Pharmacokinetics, pharmacological and anti-
`tumour effects of the specific anti-oestrogen ICI 182780 in
`women with advanced breast cancer, 74 BRIT. J. CANCER
`300–08 (1996) (“Howell”)
`
`Exhibit 1008 McLeskey et al., Tamoxifen-resistant fibroblast growth factor-
`transfected MCF-7 cells are cross-resistant in vivo to the
`antiestrogen ICI 182,780 and two aromatase inhibitors, 4 CLIN.
`CANCER RESEARCH 697–711 (1998) (“McLeskey”)
`
`Exhibit 1009 O’Regan et al., Effects of the Antiestrogens Tamoxifen,
`Toremifene, and ICI 182,780 on Endometrial Cancer Growth,
`90 J. NAT’L CANCER INST. 1552–1558 (1998) (“O’Regan”)
`
`Order, AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Sandoz Inc., No. 14–03547
`(D.N.J. July 29, 2015), ECF No. 102
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`
`Institution Decision in Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB,
`Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01325 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)
`
`Declaration of Diane Burgess, Ph.D. and Accompanying Exhibits
`
`Declaration of Richard Bergstrom, Ph.D. and Accompanying
`Exhibits
`
`Declaration of Dorraya El-Ashry, Ph.D. and Accompanying
`Exhibits
`
`Exhibit 1015 Declaration of Adrian Harris, M.B., Ph.D. and Accompanying
`Exhibits
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,659,516 (“the ‘516 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`
`Exhibit 1019
`
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`
`
`
`AstraZeneca’s Preliminary Response in Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`AstraZeneca AB, Paper No. 10, IPR2016-01316 (P.T.A.B. Oct.
`17, 2016)
`
`DeLuca, Formulation of Small Volume Parenterals,
`PHARMACEUTICAL DOSAGE FORMS: PARENTERAL MEDICATIONS
`VOLUME 1 (Avis ed., 2d ed. 1992)
`
`Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Ronald J. Sawchuk in
`Application No. 12/285,887
`
`Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Paul Richard Gellert in
`Application No. 10/872,784
`
`Faslodex® Label, available at:
`www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/021344s01
`9s020lbl.pdf
`
`DiPiro, Concepts in Clinical Pharmacokinetics (2010)
`
`Qiu, Developing Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Pharmaceutical
`Theory and Practice (2009)
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1024
`
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`
`Exhibit 1027
`
`
`Exhibit 1028
`
`
`Exhibit 1029
`
`
`Tozer, Introduction to Pharmacokinetics and
`Pharmacodynamics: The Quantitative Basis of Drug Therapy
`(2006)
`
`Caldwell, An Introduction to Drug Disposition: The Basic
`Principles of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and
`Excretion, 23 Toxicologic Pathology 102 (1995)
`
`Exhibit 1026 Wills, “Basic Pharmacodynamic Concepts and Models,”
`Pharmacodynamics and Drug Development: Perspectives in
`Clinical Pharmacology (1994)
`
`Derendorf, Handbook of Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic
`Correlation 53 (1995)
`
`Mager, Scaling Pharmacodynamics from In Vitro and Preclinical
`Animal Studies to Humans, DRUG METAB. PHARMACOKINET.
`(2009)
`
`Colburn, Simultaneous Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic
`Modeling, PHARMACODYNAMICS AND DRUG DEVELOPMENT:
`PERSPECTIVES IN CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY (1994)
`
`White, Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations
`in Antimalarial Dose Optimization, 57 ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS
`& CHEMOTHERAPY 5802 (2013)
`
`Wakeling et al., A Potent Specific Pure Antiestrogen with
`Clinical Potential, 51 CANCER RESEARCH 3867–3873 (1991)
`(“Wakeling 1991”)
`
`Nicholson, R.I. et al., Responses To Pure Antiestrogens (ICI
`164384, ICI 82780) In Estrogen-Sensitive And –Resistant
`Experimental And Clinical Breast Cancer, ANNALS OF THE NEW
`YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Vol. 61:148-163 (1995)
`(“Nicholson”)
`
`
`Exhibit 1030
`
`
`Exhibit 1031
`
`
`Exhibit 1032
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1033
`
`
`Exhibit 1034
`
`Exhibit 1035
`
`
`Exhibit 1036
`
`
`Riffkin, Castor Oil as a Vehicle for Parenteral Administration of
`Steroid Hormones, 53 J. PHARM. SCI. 891–895 (1964)
`(“Riffkin”)
`
`Finley, New Drug Being Tested in Breast Cancer Study, SAN
`ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS, Sept. 20, 1997
`
`Uges, Plasma or Serum in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and
`Clinical Toxicology, 10 PHARMACEUTISCH WEEKBLAD
`SCIENTIFIC EDITION 185–88 (1988) (“Uges”)
`
`Dukes et al., Antiuterotrophic effects of a pure antioestrogen, ICI
`182,780: magnetic resonance imaging of the uterus in
`ovariectomized monkeys, 135 J. ENDOCRINOLOGY 239–247
`(1992) (“Dukes”)
`
`WO 03/006064
`
`Exhibit 1037
`
`Exhibit 1038 DeFriend et al., Investigation of a New Pure Antiestrogen (ICI
`182780) in Women with Primary Breast Cancer, 54 CANCER
`RESEARCH 408–414 (1994) (“DeFriend”)
`
`Exhibit 1039 Osborne et al., Comparison of the Effects of a Pure Steroidal
`Antiestrogen With Those of Tamoxifen in a Model of Human
`Breast Cancer, 87 J. NAT’L CANCER INST. 746–750 (1995)
`(“Osborne 1995”)
`
`Alan E. Wakeling & Jean Bowler, ICI 182,780: A New
`Antioestrogen with Clinical Potential, 43 J. STEROID
`BIOCHEM. MOLEC. BIOL. 173–177 (1992) (“Wakeling
`1992”)
`
`Howell, A. et al., Clinical Studies With The Specific ‘Pure’
`Antiestrogen ICI 182780, THE BREAST, Vol. 5:192-195 (1996)
`(“Howell Breast 1996”)
`
`
`Exhibit 1042 Copy of Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 8,329,680
`(downloaded from PAIR)
`
`
`Exhibit 1040
`
`
`Exhibit 1041
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Robertson, J.F.R. et al., Duration Of Remission To ICI 182,780
`Compared To Megestrol Acetate In Tamoxifen Resistant Breast
`Cancer, THE BREAST, Vol. 6:186-189 (1997) (“Robertson
`1997”)
`
`Robertson, Fulvestrant Versus Anastrozole for the Treatment of
`Advanced Breast Carcinoma in Postmenopausal Women: A
`Prospective Combined Analysis of Two Multicenter Trials, 98
`CANCER 229-38 (2003) (“Robertson 2003”)
`
`Howell, Response to a Specific Antioestrogen (ICI 182780) in
`Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer, 345 LANCET 989-90 (1995)
`(“Howell 1995”)
`
`Copy of Prosecution History for the U.S. Patent No. 7,456,160
`(downloaded from PAIR)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,183,814 (“Dukes ‘814”)
`
`Exhibit 1044
`
`
`Exhibit 1045
`
`
`Exhibit 1046
`
`
`Exhibit 1047
`
`Exhibit 1048
`
`
`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1043
`
`
`Parczyk, K. et al., Progesterone Receptor Repression by
`Estrogens in Rat Uterine Epithelial Cells, 63 J. STEROID
`BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 309 (1997)
`
`Exhibit 1049 Anderson, Models of New Antioestrogen Action in Vivo: Primary
`Tumours, 5 THE BREAST 186-91 (1996)
`
`Exhibit 1050 Buzdar, Update on Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer, 4
`CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH 527-34 (1998)
`
`Exhibit 1051 Howell, New Endocrine Therapies for Breast Cancer, 32A EUR.
`J. CANCER 576-88 (1996)
`
`Exhibit 1052 Howell, The Definition of the ‘No Change’ Category in Patients
`Treated with Endocrine Therapy and Chemotherapy for
`Advanced Carcinoma of the Breast, 24 EUR. J. CANCER CLIN.
`ONCOL. 1567-72 (1988)
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1054
`
`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1053 Nicholson, “Pure Antioestrogens in Breast Cancer: Experimental
`and Clinical Observations,” Sex Hormones and Antihormones in
`Endocrine Dependent Pathology: Basic and Clinical Aspects,
`Proceedings of an International Symposium, Milano 347-60
`(1994) (“Nicholson”)
`
`Santen, Use of Aromatase Inhibitors in Breast Carcinoma, 6
`ENDOCRINE-RELATED CANCER 75-92 (1999)
`
`Exhibit 1055 EP 0 346 014
`
`Exhibit 1056 Howell, Response to a Specific Antioestrogen (ICI 182780) in
`Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer, 345 LANCET 29-30 (1995)
`
`Exhibit 1057 Dukes, Antiuterotrophic Effects of the Pure Antioestrogen ICI
`182,780 in Adult Female Monkeys (Macaca nemestrina):
`Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 138 J.
`ENDOCRINOLOGY 203-09 (1993)
`
`Exhibit 1058 Wakeling, The Future of New Pure Antioestrogens in Clinical
`Breast Cancer, 25 BREAST CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT 1-
`9 (1993) (“Wakeling”)
`
`Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs),
`BREASTCANCER.ORG (last modified Nov. 5, 2015),
`http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/hormonal/serms
`
`Exhibit 1060 Howell, Fulvestrant Revisited: Efficacy and Safety of the 500-mg
`Dose, 11 CLINICAL BREAST CANCER 204-10 (2011)
`
`Exhibit 1061 Thomas, The Effects of ICI 182,780, a Pure Anti-Oestrogen, on
`the Hypothalamic—Pituitary—Gonadal Axis and on Endometrial
`Proliferation in Pre-Menopausal Women, 9 HUMAN
`REPRODUCTION 1991-96 (1994)
`
`Freireich, Quantitative Comparison of Toxicity of Anticancer
`Agents in Mouse, Rat, Hamster, Dog, Monkey, and Man, 50
`CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY REPORTS 219-44 (1966)
`
`
`Exhibit 1059
`
`Exhibit 1062
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1066
`
`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1063 Equivalent Surface Area Dosage Conversion Factors (2007)
`
`Exhibit 1064 Clarke, Antiestrogen Resistance in Breast Cancer and the Role of
`Estrogen Receptor Signaling, 22 ONCOGENE 7316-39 (2003)
`
`Exhibit 1065 Gusterson, Do we now have a relevant animal model for breast
`cancer? 1 BREAST CANCER RESEARCH 2-4 (1999)
`
`Johnston, Changes in Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone
`Receptor, and pS2 Expression in Tamoxifen-Resistant Human
`Breast Cancer, 55 CANCER RESEARCH 3331-38 (1995)
`
`Exhibit 1067 Waynforth, LASA Good Practice Guidelines: Administration of
`Substances (Rat, Mouse, Guinea Pig, Rabbit) (Oct. 1998),
`www.procedureswithcare.org.uk/lasa_administration.pdf
`
`Exhibit 1068 Mackey, Tolerability of Intramuscular Injections of Testosterone
`Ester in Oil Vehicle, 10 HUMAN REPRODUCTION 862-65 (1995)
`
`Exhibit 1069 Kern, “Role of Angiogenesis in the Transition to Hormone
`Independence and Acquisition of the Metastatic Phenotype,”
`Endocrinology of Breast Cancer 169-86 (Manni ed., 1999)
`
`Exhibit 1070 Neubauer, Changes in Tumour Biological Markers during
`Primary Systemic Chemotherapy (PST), 28 ANTICANCER
`RESEARCH 1797-804 (2008)
`
`Smith, Analysis of Oil-Based Pharmaceuticals, 49 J. AMERICAN
`OIL CHEMISTS’ SOCIETY 409-13 (1972)
`
`Spiegel & Noseworthy, Use of Nonaqueous Solvents in
`Parenteral Products, 52 J. PHARM. SCIS. 917-27 (1963)
`(“Spiegel”)
`
`Exhibit 1073 Taucher, Sequential Steroid Hormone Receptor Measurements in
`Primary Breast Cancer with or without Intervening Primary
`Chemotherapy, 10 ENDOCRINE-RELATED CANCER 91-98 (2003)
`
`
`Exhibit 1071
`
`Exhibit 1072
`
`
`
`xv
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1075
`
`
`Exhibit 1077
`
`
`Exhibit 1078
`
`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1074 Turner, Administration of Substances to Laboratory Animals:
`Routes of Administration and Factors to Consider, 50 J.
`AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCE
`600-13 (2011)
`
`Robertson, J.F.R. et al., A Partially-Blind, Randomised,
`Multicentre Study Comparing the Anti-Tumor Effects of Single
`Doses (50, 125 and 250 mg) Of Long-Acting (LA) ‘Faslodex’
`(ICI 182,780) With Tamoxifen In Postmenopausal Women With
`Primary Breast Cancer Prior To Surgery, in 22ND ANNUAL SAN
`ANTONIO BREAST CANCER SYMPOSIUM, Abstract No. 28 (Dec. 8-
`11, 1999) (“Robertson 1999”)
`
`Exhibit 1076 Kohler, Plasma and Tissue Concentrations Following
`Intramuscular Administration of Etofenamat. Pharmacokinetics
`of Etofenamat and Flufenamic Acid in Plasma, Synovium, and
`Tissues of Patients with Chronic Polyarthritis after
`Administration of an Oily Solution of Etofenamat, 42
`ARZNEIMITTEL-FORSCHUNG (English Abstract) (1992)
`(“Kohler”)
`
`Jorgensen, Pharmacokinetic Studies in Volunteers of Intravenous
`and Oral Cis (Z)-Flupentixol and Intramuscular Cis (Z)-
`Flupentixol Decanoate in Viscoleo®, 18 EUR. J. CLIN.
`PHARMACOL. 355-60 (1980) (“Jorgensen”)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review in Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`AstraZeneca AB, Paper No. 1, IPR2016-01316 (P.T.A.B. June
`29, 2016)
`
`Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients (Wade ed., 2d ed. 1994)
`
`FDA’s Inactive Ingredient Database (1996) (“IIG”)
`
`Exhibit 1079
`
`Exhibit 1080
`
`Exhibit 1081 Drugs@FDA Glossary of Terms, U.S. FOOD & DRUG
`ADMINISTRATION (last updated Feb. 2, 2012),
`http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ucm079436.htm
`
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1084
`
`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1082 Adam, “Pharmacokinetics of Agents in Relation to Response,”
`Endocrine Management of Cancer: Biological Bases 112-24
`(1988)
`
`Exhibit 1083 Baselga, Phase II Study of Weekly Intravenous Recombinant
`Humanized Anti-p185HER2 Monoclonal Antibody in Patients with
`HER2/neu-Overexpressing Metastatic Breast Cancer, 14 J.
`CLINICAL ONCOLOGY 737-44
`
`Fabian, Clinical Pharmacology of Tamoxifen in Patients with
`Breast Cancer: Correlation with Clinical Data, 48 CANCER 876-
`82 (1981)
`
`Exhibit 1085 Goldenberg, Trastuzumab, a Recombinant DNA-Derived
`Humanized Monoclonal Antibody, a Novel Agent for the
`Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer, 21 CLINICAL
`THERAPEUTICS 309-18 (1999)
`
`Exhibit 1086 Wilkinson, Tamoxifen (Nolvadex*) Therapy – Rationale for
`Loading Dose Followed by Maintenance Dose for Patients with
`Metastatic Breast Cancer, 10 CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY
`PHARMACOLOGY 33-35 (1982)
`
`Exhibit 1087 Copy of Prosecution History for the U.S. Patent No. 8,466,139
`(downloaded from PAIR)
`
`Exhibit 1088 Wunsche, Estrogenic Regulation of Clusterin mRNA in Normal
`and Malignant Endometrial Tissue, 76 INT. J. CANCER 684-88
`(1998) (“Wunsche”)
`
`Exhibit 1089 Chwalisz, Modulation of Oestrogenic Effects by Progesterone
`Antagonists in the Rat Uterus, 4 HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE
`570-83 (1998) (“Chwalisz”)
`
`Exhibit 1090 Robertson, Fulvestrant (Faslodex®)—How to Make a Good Drug
`Better, 12 ONCOLOGIST 774-84 (2007)
`
`
`
`
`xvii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1091 Ansel, “Dosage Form Design: Biopharmaceutic and
`Pharmacokinetic Considerations,” Pharmaceutical Dosage
`Forms and Drug Delivery Systems 101-41 (7th ed. 1999)
`
`Exhibit 1092 Lee, Standard Deviation and Standard Error of the Mean, 68
`KOREAN J. ANESTHESIOLOGY 220-23 (2015)
`
`Exhibit 1093 Altman, Standard Deviations and Standard Errors, 331 BMJ 903
`(2005)
`
`Exhibit 1094 Tse, Bioavailability of Parenteral Drugs I. Intravenous and
`Intramuscular Doses, 34 J. PARENTERAL DRUG ASSOCIATION
`409-21 (1980)
`
`Exhibit 1095 Licciardi, Oral Versus Intramuscular Progesterone for In Vitro
`Fertilization: A Prospective Randomized Study, 71 FERTILITY &
`STERILITY 614-18 (1999)
`
`Exhibit 1096 August 21, 2008 Applicant Amendment and Response in
`Application No. 10/872,784
`
`Exhibit 1097 Balant-Gorgia, Pharmacokinetic Optimisation of the Treatment
`of Psychosis, 25 CLIN. PHARMACOKINET. 217-36 (1993)
`
`Exhibit 1098 Chien, Solubilization of Steroids by Multiple Co-Solvent Systems,
`23 CHEM. PHARM. BULL. 1085-90 (1975)
`
`Ford, “Parenteral Products,” Pharmaceutics: The Science of
`Dosage Form Design 359-80 (Aulton ed., 1988)
`
`Exhibit 1100 Cunliffe-Beamer, “Biomethodology and Surgical Techniques,”
`The Mouse in Biomedical Research, Volume III: Normative
`Biology, Immunology, and Husbandry 401-37 (Foster ed., 1983)
`
`Exhibit 1101 Way, “Cosolvent Use in Injectable Formulations,” Injectable
`Drug Development: Techniques to Reduce Pain and Irritation
`215-66 (Gupta ed., 1999)
`
`
`Exhibit 1099
`
`
`
`xviii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1105
`
`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1102 Nema, Excipients and Their Use in Injectable Products, 51 PDA
`J. PHARM. SCI. & TECH. 166-71 (1997)
`
`Exhibit 1103 Ogasawara, Effects of Experimental Chemoendocrine Therapy
`with a Combination of a Pure Antiestrogen and 5-Fluorouracil
`on Human Breast Cancer Cells Implanted in Nude Mice, 29
`SURGERY TODAY 149-56 (1999)
`
`Exhibit 1104 Oldham, “Mass Transport to Electrodes,” Chemical Kinetics 79-
`143 (Bamford ed., 1986)
`
`Powell, Compendium of Excipients for Parenteral Formulations,
`52 PDA J. PHARM. SCI. & TECH. 238-311 (1998)
`
`Exhibit 1106 Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences 1538-39, 1545-50, 1686-
`88 (18th ed. 1990)
`
`Exhibit 1107 Roberts, Investigation of Cosolvent Effects on the Solvation of
`AOT Reverse Micelles in Supercritical Ethane, 102 J. PHYS.
`CHEM. B 9074-80 (1998)
`
`Sawka, Physiological Consequences of Hypohydration: Exercise
`Performance and Thermoregulation, 24 MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN
`SPORTS & EXERCISE 657-70 (1992)
`
`Simmons, The Laboratory Mouse: Selection and Management
`127-28 (1970)
`
`Exhibit 1110 Ting, Solubility of Naproxen in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide
`with and without Cosolvents, 32 IND. ENG. CHEM. RES. 1471-81
`(1993)
`
`Exhibit 1111 Tse, Bioavailability of Parenteral Drugs II. Parenteral Doses
`Other Than Intravenous and Intramuscular Routes, 34 J.
`PARENTERAL DRUG ASSOCIATION 484-95 (1980)
`
`Exhibit 1112 U.S. Patent No. 4,212,863
`
`
`Exhibit 1108
`
`Exhibit 1109
`
`
`
`xix
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit 1113 USP 23 – NF 18, The United States Pharmacopeia – The
`National Formulary 13-14 (1995)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xx
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00904
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`7α-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulphinyl)nonyl]oestra-1,3,5(10)-
`
`triene-3,17β-
`
`
`
`diol ..................................................................................................Fulvestrant
`
`Estrogen receptor…………………………………………………………………ER
`
`Estrogen receptor-positive ..........................................................ER+ or ER-positive
`
`Estrogen-receptor downregulators.....................................................................ERDs
`
`Hormone-dependent...............................................................................................HD
`
`ICI 182,780................................................................................................Fulvestrant
`
`Intramuscular .......................

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