throbber
CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC and PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-003241
`U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,114,833
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`1
`
`IPR2020-01252 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`THE PREAMBLES OF CLAIMS 25-31 ARE NOT
`LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 5
`III. CLAIMS 1-15 WERE ANTICIPATED .......................................................... 7
`Flink Anticipates Claims 1-15............................................................... 9
`A.
`Flink is Enabled ................................................................................... 13
`B.
`IV. CLAIMS 1-15 WERE OBVIOUS OVER FLINK ........................................ 14
`A.
`Flink Teaches the Use of PG as an Isotonic Agent in a GLP-1
`Formulation ......................................................................................... 14
`Petitioner Demonstrated Motivation and Reasonable
`Expectation of Success ........................................................................ 15
`ALL CLAIMS OF THE ’833 PATENT WERE OBVIOUS
`OVER FLINK IN VIEW OF BETZ .............................................................. 18
`A.
`Claims 1-15 are Obvious ..................................................................... 18
`Betz Teaches Formulations That Include PG Without
`1.
`Mannitol .................................................................................... 18
`Protein Drug Physical Instability Provides Motivation to
`Combine Flink and Betz with a Reasonable Expectation
`of Success .................................................................................. 19
`Claims 16-22 are Obvious ................................................................... 21
`B.
`Claims 23-29 are Obvious ................................................................... 21
`C.
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS FAIL TO OVERCOME
`THE PRIMA FACIE CASE .......................................................................... 22
`Claim 14 of Flink is the Closest Prior Art........................................... 22
`A.
`B.
`PG’s Performance Was Expected ....................................................... 23
`Differences in Degree Do No Support Patentability ........................... 24
`C.
`Novo’s Evidence is Not Commensurate in Scope .............................. 25
`D.
`VII. BETZ IS PRIOR ART ................................................................................... 26
`
`2.
`
`VI.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Alcon Rsch. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 14
`Boehringer. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-
`Plough Corp.,
`320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 7
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 8
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 25
`ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.,
`668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 12
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 28
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 26
`Griffin v. Bertina,
`285 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 7
`Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa Inc.,
`814 F.App’x 592 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 13
`Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc.,
`468 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 14
`In re Donohue,
`766 F.2d 531 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 14
`In re Gleave,
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 15
`In re Grasselli,
`713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 26
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`In re Heck,
`699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 13
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 26
`In re Steed,
`802 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 28
`Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
`874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 16
`Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
`432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`Powervip, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`2011 WL 2669059 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2011) ..................................................... 7
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 6
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 12
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph
`790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 8
`Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C.,
`412 F3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 9
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ...................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .............................................................................................. 27, 28
`Public Health Service Act, Section 351(i)(1) .......................................................... 21
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`MPEP § 2136 ........................................................................................................... 28
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Disodium phosphate dihydrate ............................................................................ DPD
`
`International Publication WO 03/002136 (Ex.1004) .......................................... Flink
`
`International Publication WO 04/004781 (Ex.1005) ........................................... Betz
`
`Patent Owner Novo Nordisk A/S ........................................................................ Novo
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art ...................................................................... POSA
`
`Petitioners Mylan Institutional LLC and Pfizer Inc. ................................... Petitioner
`
`Propylene glycol ..................................................................................................... PG
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833 ......................................................................... ’833 patent
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Novo’s response takes the remarkable position that a patent application
`
`drafted and amended specifically to cover a propylene glycol-containing liraglutide
`
`formulation neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed propylene glycol-
`
`containing liraglutide formulation. Nothing in Novo’s response changes the clear
`
`disclosures of Flink, a patent application that claims the exact formulation the ’833
`
`patent seeks to protect. Flink claims a GLP-1 agonist formulation with an
`
`isotonicity agent and a buffer. Flink’s specification informs that POSA that the
`
`isotonicity agent can be propylene glycol, specifically identifying that compound.
`
`Flink’s specification likewise tells POSAs that the buffer can be disodium
`
`phosphate dihydrate. Flink epitomizes an anticipatory disclosure of claims 1-15.
`
`To the extent there are any gaps between the ’833 patent’s claims and Flink,
`
`those gaps are miniscule and easily traversed by Flink’s explicit identification of
`
`the isotonicity agent and buffer to be used whether considered alone or in view of
`
`other prior art.
`
`II.
`
`THE PREAMBLES OF CLAIMS 25-31 ARE NOT LIMITATIONS
`The Board’s determination that “the preambles of claims 23, 26, and 29 are
`
`not limiting” should stand. Paper 13 at 8. While the District Court found otherwise,
`
`that is not dispositive here. See RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., Inc.,
`
`326 F.3d 1255, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (no preclusive effect of claim
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`construction opinions before final judgment); Powervip, Inc. v. Static Control
`
`Components, Inc., 2011 WL 2669059, at *6 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2011) (no
`
`preclusive effect of claim construction decision, noting that district courts are often
`
`overturned and in ongoing litigations “constructions may…still be changed”).
`
`Indeed, the District Court, in its own words, was “not entirely comfortable” with
`
`its decision. Ex.1116, 46:3-8.
`
`While Novo presents attorney argument in support of its construction, it
`
`offers nothing from POSAs. And those arguments fail. Novo’s argument that the
`
`preambles are limitations because the purpose of the invention “is recited only in
`
`the preambles” should be rejected. While it may be true that the inventors intended
`
`to reduce deposits and clogging, that does not convert the preambles into claim
`
`limitations. Boehringer and Griffin each demonstrate why. In both cases, the steps
`
`in the body of the claim lacked utility or a result if the preambles were not
`
`considered limiting, and so terms that followed would have consisted of “empty
`
`language” as in Griffin and resulted in the “absence of fathomable utility” as in
`
`Boehringer. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320
`
`F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). Here, however, the method steps (i.e., replacing a previously-used
`
`isotonicity agent) results in the intended reductions.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Moreover, Novo’s position as to the specification and prosecution history is
`
`inapposite. While the intended purpose of the invention is reductions, that is the
`
`not the same as the invention being so limited. The specification and claims
`
`confirm the alleged invention is a formulation, with the reductions being an
`
`intended result. Indeed, much of the specification is directed solely towards the
`
`formulation. Ex.1001, 3:34-14:55. Novo’s reference to the prosecution history
`
`likewise fails. The claims were allowed because of amendments to the formulation,
`
`not reliance on the preambles. Ex.1003, 180, 188, 190-192.
`
`Finally, Novo’s claim differentiation and “antecedent basis” arguments
`
`should be rejected. Claim differentiation “is not a ‘hard and fast’ rule,” Bristol-
`
`Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001),
`
`and should not apply here as explained in the Petition. As to antecedent basis,
`
`simply referring in the body of the claim to a term in the preamble does not convert
`
`the preamble into a limitation. TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph 790 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). None of Novo’s arguments convert the preambles of claims 23, 26, and
`
`28 into limitations.
`
`III.
`
`CLAIMS 1-15 WERE ANTICIPATED
`Each limitation of claims 1-15 is not only disclosed but is claimed by Flink.
`
`Novo appears to, in other contexts, share this view. While Flink is unchallenged as
`
`§102(b) prior art, by its own admission, “Flink describes Novo Nordisk’s earlier,
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`laboratory-scale formulation work with GLP-1.” Paper 25, 2. Thus, Novo listed its
`
`U.S.
`
`counterpart
`
`to Flink
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 8,846,618
`
`“the
`
`’618
`
`patent”)(Ex.1107)—with a nearly identical specification as Flink—as covering its
`
`own liraglutide product. Ex.1117. That patent has broad claims to isotonic agents
`
`(e.g., compare claim 6 with claim 14 of Flink) and identically lists PG in the same
`
`list in the specification. Ex.1117. By extension Novo has also alleged infringement
`
`by Mylan of the same patent claims in District Court litigation related to Mylan’s
`
`proposed liraglutide product. Ex.1118. Novo would thus have the Board find that
`
`for the purposes of anticipation, Flink does not anticipate, while maintaining that
`
`functionally the same patent covers its own liraglutide product2 and that Mylan’s
`
`proposed liraglutide product infringes it. Such a proposition is difficult, if not
`
`impossible, to square with a central tenet of the law of anticipation: that which
`
`infringes if later, anticipates if earlier. See Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab,
`
`L.L.C., 412 F3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A century-old axiom of patent law
`
`holds that...‘which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier.”
`
`(citations omitted)); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d
`
`1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Because Apotex seeks to practice the prior art, and
`
`Notably, Novo’s expert, Dr. Tessier testified he didn’t “know how [he]
`2
`
`would get from Flink to Victoza,” making plain Dr. Tessier’s tortured reading of
`
`Flink. Ex.1077, 95:12-13.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`because that practice infringes, the next logical inquiry involves anticipation. That
`
`is, if the prior art infringes now, logically the prior art should have anticipated the
`
`claim before the filing of the...patent.”).
`
`Flink Anticipates Claims 1-15
`A.
`Flink provides a clear roadmap for POSAs to arrive at the formulation
`
`recited in claims 1-15.
`
`First, Novo’s argument (at 20) that Flink is not anticipatory because POSAs
`
`“would see six genuses of chemicals that can be used as isotonicity agents”
`
`presents POSAs “with hundreds of choices” misses the mark. As Dr. Forrest
`
`explains, Flink specifically identifies PG as an example of an isotonic agent to be
`
`used in the claimed formulation. Ex.1106, ¶¶16-17. Moreover, PG is one of just
`
`eighteen exemplary isotonicity agents listed. Id. Flink’s listing of PG as a specific
`
`example raises it well above the alleged “hundreds of choices.” Id.; Ex.1004, 19.
`
`Novo’s argument that POSAs would view the disclosure of PG as only a
`
`polyhydric alcohol, and not an isotonicity agent at all, is dubious at best. As Dr.
`
`Forrest testifies, POSAs would read Flink as disclosing the exemplary polyhydric
`
`alcohols to be used as isotonicity agents. Ex.1106, ¶¶16-17. Novo’s reading is
`
`belied by the words of Flink itself given the use of “e.g.”
`
`Notably, during prosecution, Novo added PG as an “e.g.” example. In four
`
`priority applications to Flink, PG was absent, but it was later added, indicating
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo wanted to ensure PG was an isotonicity agent covered by the claims.
`
`Exs.1108-1113. Given Flink’s disclosure of PG as a specified example, which
`
`Novo deliberately added, Novo’s position should be rejected. Perricone v. Medicis
`
`Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-77 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding anticipation and
`
`stating that where “the prior art does not merely disclose a genus...[but a] specific
`
`disclosure, even in a list, makes [the] case different from cases involving
`
`disclosure of a broad genus without reference to the potentially anticipating
`
`species”).
`
`Second, Dr. Tessier’s concerns about alleged instability, hemolysis, pain,
`
`thrombophlebitis, and dermatitis do not remove Flink as an anticipatory reference.
`
`Ex.1106, ¶18. Even if POSAs would be concerned about these issues–and they
`
`would not be–Flink remains anticipatory. Id. The claims are to a formulation, and
`
`thus do not require it to be free from side effects, for example. See, e.g., Ex.1077,
`
`18:16-29:7 (claims are to “formulation”).
`
`Third, Flink anticipates the disclosed PG ranges. Claim 14 of Flink requires
`
`that the claimed isotonic agent (e.g., PG) be present at a concentration of 1mg/ml
`
`to 50mg/ml. Ex.1004, 47-48. Novo’s statements (at 32) that finding the “right
`
`concentration” is “critical to carry out [PG’s] function” are of no moment. The
`
`claims do not require that the formulation be isotonic, nor do they require that PG
`
`function as an isotonic agent. The range recited in claim 14 of Flink–1mg/ml to
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`50mg/ml–is a species with the range recited in claims 1-2 and is therefore
`
`anticipatory. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Flink’s claimed range overlaps the broad ranges recited in claims 3-4, thereby
`
`disclosing them with sufficient specificity to anticipate. ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl
`
`River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claims to alkalinity below
`
`50ppm anticipated by prior art disclosure of alkalinity less than 150ppm); see also
`
`Ex.1106, ¶¶19-23.
`
`Fourth, as to DPD, Novo again proffers a tortured reading of Flink. Novo’s
`
`argument that “disodium phosphate dihydrate” is “not even mentioned” ignores
`
`POSAs’ knowledge and understanding. As Dr. Forrest explained, a “disodium
`
`hydrogen phosphate” buffer, which is explicitly listed, is of the same species as the
`
`“disodium phosphate dihydrate” agent in solution. Ex.1106, ¶¶24-28. Indeed, as
`
`Dr. Forrest notes, Flink’s use of DPD in Example 7 demonstrates that the dihydrate
`
`form of disodium hydrogen phosphate was a specific example of a buffering agent
`
`used to prepare the preferred disodium hydrogen phosphate buffer embodiment
`
`listed on page 18. Id.
`
`Fifth, Novo’s focus on Example 7 does not preclude a finding of
`
`anticipation. Flink broadly claims formulations of GLP-1 with various isotonicity
`
`agents and buffers, with Example 7 providing an embodiment of certain claimed
`
`formulations. Ex.1106, ¶¶26-27. For Flink to anticipate, Example 7 alone does not
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`need to teach the use of PG. Instead, for anticipation one looks to the whole
`
`reference. Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa Inc., 814 F.App’x
`
`592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[P]rior art references should be considered for all that
`
`they teach, rather than being limited to a particular embodiment.”) (citing Belden
`
`Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Thus, as the Board
`
`properly stated upon Institution, Flink, viewed holistically, teaches looking to
`
`Example 7, with an alternate isotonicity agent such as PG (denoted as an example
`
`with an “e.g.”).
`
`Moreover, the Board was correct that “Flink’s claim language indicating that
`
`mannitol will not be selected…for some of its formulations, provides additional
`
`support”. Paper 13, 15 (emphasis added). While Novo tries to sidestep the
`
`disclosure of PG as an example, Flink teaches PG as an isotonicity agent and its
`
`claims cover a formulation containing it. Flink thus anticipates claims 1-15 of the
`
`’833 patent.3
`
`
`3 While Novo makes much of the multiple dependences in Flink’s claims,
`
`Novo does not dispute that one aspect of the claim includes the embodiment
`
`identified by Petitioner. This aspect of Flink cannot be ignored. In re Heck, 699
`
`F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (prior art patents are “part of the literature of
`
`the art, relevant for all they contain”).
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Flink is Enabled
`B.
`A prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure and thus anticipates a
`
`claimed invention if the reference describes the claimed invention in sufficient
`
`detail to enable POSAs to carry out the claimed invention. “[P]roof of efficacy is
`
`not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
`
`Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A
`
`reference contains an “enabling disclosure” if the public was in possession of the
`
`prior claimed invention before the effective filing date of the later claimed
`
`invention. “Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have
`
`combined the publication’s description of the invention with his [or her] own
`
`knowledge to make the claimed invention.” In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1985). Flink disclosed to the public a PG and DPD-containing GLP-1
`
`formulation before the priority date of the ’833 patent, and so it is enabled.
`
`Novo’s argument (at 33) that “Flink falls far short of enabling the claimed
`
`formulations” is appropriately rejected. For example, Novo points to the lack of an
`
`example formulation containing PG. However, a patent need not list a working
`
`example to be enabled. Alcon Rsch. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 745 F.3d 1180, 1189
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] patentee is not required to provide actual working
`
`examples.”).
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Novo’s argument (at 33) that there is “no guidance on using [PG] in
`
`pharmaceutical formulations” likewise falls flat. Consistent with the law, as Dr.
`
`Forrest notes, and as Dr. Tessier conceded in deposition, the claims require only
`
`combining the ingredients. Ex.1106, ¶¶29-31; Ex.1077, 18:16-29:7; In re Gleave,
`
`560 F.3d 1331, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (for composition claims, a reference is
`
`enabled when POSAs would know how to make it; whether a particular compound
`
`works for its intended purpose is not relevant). Any testing would only confirm
`
`what POSAs would have expected. As the ’833 patent acknowledges, the
`
`preparation of the claimed formulations could be accomplished by simply using
`
`“conventional techniques.” Ex.1001, 12:64-13:3. Thus, any work to combine the
`
`ingredients is well within the skill of an ordinarily POSA. Id. Flink is therefore
`
`enabled.
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIMS 1-15 WERE OBVIOUS OVER FLINK
`Novo’s argument that claims 1-15 were not obvious over Flink mirror its
`
`anticipation arguments and thus also fail.
`
`A.
`
`Flink Teaches the Use of PG as an Isotonic Agent in a GLP-1
`Formulation
`Novo does not meaningfully dispute that Flink discloses PG as an isotonic
`
`agent. Instead, Novo argues (at 20) that PG is just one non-emphasized example
`
`from hundreds of possible isotonic agents encompassed by the listed genuses.
`
`Novo further—and wrongly—claims (at 35) that Petitioner reads Flink as
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`“teaching that any of the numerous isotonicity agents falling within the listed
`
`genuses [spanning pages 19-20] . . . are equally suitable for use with GLP-1.” That
`
`is not Petitioner’s argument.
`
`Petitioner instead points to the eighteen expressly disclosed exemplary
`
`agents that are denoted as examples from the genuses. Paper 2, 42-43; Ex.1002,
`
`¶157; Ex.1106, ¶33. The Board likewise stated that “Flink taught or suggested
`
`using any of its disclosed isotonicity agents in combinations with any of its
`
`[disclosed] buffers.” Paper 13, 21 (emphasis added). Accordingly, nobody has
`
`suggested that any species within the listed genuses of Flink are taught as suitable
`
`agents, and Petitioner need not do so. Rather, the smaller group of eighteen
`
`exemplary agents expressly disclosed as isotonic agents—including PG—
`
`demonstrate it would be obvious to POSAs to select an isotonic agent from the
`
`smaller, specifically-disclosed group. That is the case regardless of whether those
`
`eighteen agents are identified as “preferred.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
`
`874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Demonstrated Motivation and Reasonable Expectation
`of Success
`Petitioner has shown that POSAs would have been motivated to select both
`
`PG and DPD with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`First, POSAs understood that PG could adjust tonicity. Dr. Tessier admits
`
`that every solute in a formulation will contribute to its tonicity. Ex.2022, ¶57. That
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`principle applies to agents known also as cosolvents with a propensity to diffuse
`
`across cell membranes like PG and glycerol. Ex.1106, ¶¶36, 52. And while in vitro
`
`test results inform POSAs that PG or glycerol may cause hemolysis under in vitro
`
`equilibrium conditions, Dr. Forrest explains that POSAs would understand that
`
`such in vitro testing is not reflective of what occurs upon in vivo administration,
`
`alleviating concerns related to the use of PG. Ex.1106, ¶¶43-53.
`
`Further, Flink specifies that “[t]he use of an isotonic agent in pharmaceutical
`
`compositions is well-known to the skilled person” in view of Remington: THE
`
`SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF PHARMACY, 19th edition, 1995. Ex.1004, 20:17-19;
`
`Ex.1013; Ex.2081. Far from “teach[ing] virtually nothing” s as Novo suggests (at
`
`35), Flink made clear that POSAs understood the use of the isotonic agents, and
`
`that disclosure was enough.
`
`Second, while isotonicity is not required by the claims, POSAs knew how to
`
`calculate a suitable amount of PG within the claimed ranges. As Dr. Forrest
`
`explains, POSAs were well versed in ways to calculate the amount, and that an
`
`appropriate estimate was the practice of not only POSAs, but of the inventors.
`
`Ex.1106, ¶¶54-57.
`
`Third, there were no “red flags” that would dissuade POSAs from using PG,
`
`especially at the claimed concentrations. Dr. Tessier’s contention that hemolysis
`
`and other side effects would warrant its exclusion is exaggerated and contrary to
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`conventional drug development. As Dr. Forrest states, virtually all drugs and
`
`excipients are associated with some potential side effects, including PG and
`
`mannitol. Ex.1106, ¶51. PG has been used in drug formulations for years and is
`
`considered safe—even at high concentrations. Id., ¶38.
`
`Fourth, Novo’s claims of instability problems are unfounded. While GLP-1
`
`had been known to be unstable in its native form, Flink and others had established
`
`that modifications to GLP-1 and optimizing the pH of the formulation greatly
`
`improved GLP-1’s stability. Ex.1106, ¶¶61, 72. Thus, while POSAs would have
`
`carefully considered excipients compatible with GLP-1 agonists like liraglutide, it
`
`would not be as unpredictable as Novo suggests. Paper 25, 39-40; Ex.1106, ¶¶60-
`
`64.
`
`Moreover, Novo offers only conclusory testimony of its expert without
`
`evidence that PG would in fact destabilize GLP-1—or any other peptide or protein.
`
`In contrast, Dr. Forrest explains that the evidence presented would have motivated
`
`POSAs to use PG to improve stability. Ex.1106, ¶¶62-71.
`
` That’s hardly the evidence Novo claims it is.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Finally, as the Board correctly finds, the teachings of Flink are not limited to
`
`its examples, so Flink’s disclosure of both DPD as a buffer and PG as an isotonic
`
`agent allows for their combination because Flink “does not limit the selection of
`
`the isotonic agent based upon the selection of the buffer”. Paper 13, 20-21.
`
`V.
`
`ALL CLAIMS OF THE ’833 PATENT WERE OBVIOUS OVER
`FLINK IN VIEW OF BETZ
`A. Claims 1-15 are Obvious
`Novo attempts to undercut Petitioner’s arguments regarding Flink and Betz
`
`also fail.
`
`1.
`
`Betz Teaches Formulations That Include PG Without
`Mannitol
`Betz teaches that it is preferred for formulations to contain PG without an
`
`additional tonicity adjusting agent (i.e., without mannitol) to minimize the number
`
`of excipients. Ex.1005, 7. Also, in view of PG’s ability to act as a stabilizer while
`
`also contributing to the tonicity of the formulation, POSAs would have naturally
`
`used PG instead of mannitol. Ex.1106, ¶101-103.
`
`Moreover, according to Novo, “the worst” formulation containing lesser or
`
`no mannitol (i.e., Formulations 5-8) showed crystals at 7 weeks and was thus more
`
`stable than “the worst” formulation containing greater amounts of mannitol (i.e.,
`
`Formulations 1-4) that showed crystals at 4 weeks. Paper 25, 55; see also Ex.2022,
`
`¶125). However, even that interpretation teaches having more PG than mannitol
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`results in a more stable formulation, undercutting Novo’s argument. Ex.1002,
`
`¶199; Ex.1106, ¶102.
`
`Further, Novo misinterprets (at 54-55) the data related to the results of the
`
`tests performed at 2°-8°C. Betz does not conclude that Formulation 2 was the most
`
`stable at that temperature. Instead, Betz states (at 18) that “[t]he formulations
`
`stored at 2°-8°C do not show crystallization during the test period,” indicating that
`
`none of the formulations showed instability, not that the length of the test period
`
`correlated with increased stability. Ex.1106, ¶102. Thus, Novo’s criticisms are
`
`unavailing.
`
`2.
`
`Protein Drug Physical Instability Provides Motivation to
`Combine Flink and Betz with a Reasonable Expectation of
`Success
`Protein drug physical instability provided POSAs with ample reason to
`
`combine Flink and Betz with a reasonable expectation of success. As Dr. Forrest
`
`explains, POSAs looking to improve stability of a peptide would consider the
`
`effects of excipients used to improve stability in other peptide or protein drugs of
`
`similar or greater complexity. Ex.1106, ¶¶74-75, 78-82. This is because proteins
`
`having greater complexity often have stability issues that are the same as or similar
`
`to peptides with less complexity; informing POSAs about common excipients used
`
`in both. Id., ¶¶78-96. While Betz applies the solution to a different protein, POSAs
`
`would look to it, providing motivation and a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Betz thus motivated POSAs to use PG to stabilize a protein while simultaneously
`
`contributing to the tonicity of the formulation leading one to combine the teachings
`
`of Flink and Betz.
`
`Novo argues (at 57) that POSAs would have “viewed [hGH and GLP-1] as
`
`falling into distinct categories of therapeutic agents, each with different
`
`challenges.” Novo leans on a statutory definition of “biological product” in section
`
`351(i)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (effective March 2020) for its argument,
`
`but regulatory definitions offer no support for how POSAs approaches formulation
`
`development, let alone at the invention date.
`
`Novo’s argument (at 58) that Betz “contravenes Flink’s core teaching” is
`
`also unavailing because Mylan does not rely on Betz for teaching the claimed pH.
`
`Further, as Dr. Forrest explains, the function of PG is not dependent on pH and
`
`thus has no bearing on Betz’s teaching to use PG in formulations without mannitol.
`
`Ex.1106, ¶¶97-99.
`
`Moreover, despite Novo’s statement (at 58) that Petitioner “failed to
`
`explain” why POSAs “would have expected success,” Petitioner explained the
`
`known mannitol crystallization problem and how use of PG solves it. Paper 2, 21-
`
`23. Mannitol was known to crystallize and precipitate out of solution at
`
`“supersaturated” concentrations. Id. While mannitol-containing GLP-1 agonist
`
`formulations are not prepared with supersaturated concentrations, equipment and
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`needles that contact the formulations are subject to supersaturated formulations due
`
`to evaporation, leaving behind precipitated residue. Ex.1106, ¶¶108-110. PG, a
`
`liquid at room temperature, was known to not crystallize, and so POSAs would not
`
`expect a residue. Id., ¶108. Thus, POSAs would have been motivated to combine
`
`Flink and Betz with a reasonable expectation of success.

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