Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLCv.Pozen Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2015

14244471 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22
571-272-7822 Entered: December 17, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VII LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

POZEN INC.,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, LORA M. GREEN, and
JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
The Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a
Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of
U.S. Patent No. 8,858,996 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’996 patent”). Pozen Inc.
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (“Prelim.
Resp.”).1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, we may not institute an inter partes
review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
Upon consideration of information presented in the Petition and the
Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
any claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we decline to institute an
inter partes review.
A. Related Proceedings
The parties identify a number of judicial matters involving the ’996
patent (e.g., Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc., 3:15-cv-03322
(D.N.J.)), as well as a number of judicial and administrative matters
involving patents related to the ’996 patent (e.g., AstraZeneca AB v. Dr.
Reddy’s Labs. Inc., 3:11-cv-02317 (D.N.J.); Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc. v. Pozen
Inc., Case IPR2015-00802 (PTAB); Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC

1 Patent Owner filed a Motion to File Under Seal its Preliminary Response
and an associated exhibit, Ex. 2012. Paper 16. Along with the Motion to
Seal, Patent Owner filed a redacted version of the Preliminary Response to
be available to the public. Paper 13.
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

3

v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01241 (PTAB)). Pet. 2–3; Paper 7, 8. In addition to
Case No. IPR2015-01241, Petitioner filed two other Petitions for inter
partes review involving patents related to the ’996 patent or directed to
similar subject matter in Case Nos. IPR2015-01680 and IPR2015-01718.
B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
following grounds. Pet. 4–5, 11–60.
Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged
Goldman,2 Remington,3 and
Lindberg4 § 103(a) 1–19
Gimet,5 Goldman, and
Lindberg
§ 103(a) 1–19
The ’255 Publication6 § 102(b) 1–19

2 U.S. Patent No. 5,204,118, issued April 20, 1993, to Goldman et al.
(“Goldman”) (Ex. 1004).
3 Robert E. King & Joseph D. Schwartz, Oral Solid Dosage Forms, in
REMINGTON’S PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES 1603–32 (Alfonso R. Gennaro et
al., eds.) (17th ed. 1985) (“Remington”) (Ex. 1005).
4 U.S. Patent No. 5,714,504, issued Feb. 3, 1998, to Lindberg et al.
(“Lindberg”) (Ex. 1007).
5 U.S. Patent No. 5,698,225, issued December 16, 1997, to Gimet et al.
(“Gimet”) (Ex. 1006).
6 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2003/0069255 A1, published Apr. 10, 2003,
filed by Plachetka (“the ’255 Publication”) (Ex. 1008).
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

4

Petitioner supports its challenges in the Petition with the Declaration of Leon
Shargel, Ph.D., R.Ph., executed on June 5, 2015 (“Shargel Declaration”)
(Ex. 1003).
C. The ’996 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’996 patent discloses pharmaceutical compositions “that provide
for the coordinated release of an acid inhibitor and a non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drug (NSAID)” (Ex. 1001, 1:25–28), such that there is “a
reduced likelihood of causing unwanted side effects, especially
gastrointestinal side effects, when administered as a treatment for pain” (id.
at 1:28–31).
Specifically, the ’996 patent discloses “a pharmaceutical composition
in unit dosage form . . . contain[ing] an acid inhibitor present in an amount
effective to raise the gastric pH of a patient to at least 3.5” (id. at 3:31–37),
and an NSAID “in an amount effective to reduce or eliminate pain or
inflammation” (id. at 4:3–5). “The term ‘unit dosage form’ . . . refers to a
single entity for drug administration. For example, a single tablet or capsule
combining both an acid inhibitor and an NSAID would be a unit dosage
form.” Id. at 4:46–49.
A unit dosage form of the present invention preferably provides
for coordinated drug release in a way that elevates gastric pH
and reduces the deleterious effects of the NSAID on the
gastroduodenal mucosa, i.e., the acid inhibitor is released first
and the release of NSAID is delayed until after the pH in the GI
tract has risen.
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

5

In a preferred embodiment, the unit dosage form is a
multilayer tablet, having an outer layer comprising the acid
inhibitor and an inner core which comprises the NSAID. In the
most preferred form, coordinated delivery is accomplished by
having the inner core surrounded by a polymeric barrier coating
that does not dissolve unless the surrounding medium is at a pH
of at least 3.5, preferably at least 4 and more preferably, at least
5.
Id. at 4:49–63.
“The term ‘acid inhibitor’ refers to agents that inhibit gastric acid
secretion and increase gastric pH.” Id. at 3:38–40. According to the ’996
patent, preferred acid inhibiters are H2-blockers, such as famotidine (id. at
3:40–47), but “[o]ther preferred agents that may be effectively used as acid
inhibitors are the proton pump inhibitors such as . . . esomeprazole,” for
example, in a typical amount of 5–100 mg (id. at 3:48–51, 8:17–18).
The ’996 patent also discloses that the NSAID may be a number of
different options, such as aspirin, acetaminophen, etc., where the “most
preferred NSAID is naproxen in an amount of between 50 mg and 1500 mg,
and more preferably, in an amount of between 200 mg and 600 mg.” Id. at
4:5–18.
D. Illustrative Claims
Petitioner challenges claims 1–19 of the ’996 patent. Independent
claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are illustrative.
1. A pharmaceutical composition in unit dosage form in the
form of a tablet, said composition comprising:
naproxen in an amount of 200–600 mg per unit dosage form;
and
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

6

esomeprazole in an amount of from 5 to 100 mg per unit
dosage form,
wherein upon introduction of said unit dosage form into a
medium, at least a portion of said esomeprazole is
released regardless of the pH of the medium, and release
of at least a portion of said naproxen is inhibited unless
the pH of said medium is 3.5 or higher.
12. A pharmaceutical composition in unit dosage form in the
form of a tablet, said composition comprising:
a core layer comprising naproxen, wherein said core layer
has a coating that inhibits release of said naproxen from
said core layer unless said dosage form is in a medium
with a pH of 3.5 or higher; and
a layer comprising esomeprazole, wherein said layer has a
non-enteric film coating that, upon ingestion by a patient,
releases said esomeprazole into the stomach of said
patient.
Ex. 1001, 21:23–35, 22:17–26.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

7

We determine that the only claim terms requiring interpretation for
purposes of this Decision are “inhibit” and “acid inhibitor.”
The challenged claims recite the terms “inhibited” or “inhibits” in
relation to the release of naproxen from a unit dosage form when introduced
into a medium with a pH of 3.5 or higher. Petitioner asserts that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “inhibit” is “to slow down, hinder, or
prevent.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1034, 51, Exs. 1036–38). Patent Owner
contends that the ordinary meaning of “inhibits” refers to a coating that
“prevents, hinders, or restrains the release of NSAID.” Prelim. Resp. 7
(citing Ex. 2006, 3; Ex. 2007, 3).
The specification of the ’996 patent does not define expressly the term
“inhibit.” Considering the ordinary and customary meaning of the term in
view of the specification and the claims themeselves, however, we construe
“inhibit” to mean prevent (stop), hinder, or restrain. Ex. 1035, 2; Ex. 1036,
49; Ex. 2006, 3; Ex. 2007, 3.
For example, claim 1 of the ’996 patent recites that “release of at least
a portion” of napoxin “is inhibited unless the pH” is 3.5 or higher (emphasis
added). Claim 12 recites a “coating that inhibits release of said naproxen
from said core layer unless said dosage form is in a medium with a pH of 3.5
or higher” (emphasis added). Thus, “inhibits” refers to preventing,
hindering, or restraining the release of naproxen “unless” the dosage form is
exposed to a pH of 3.5 or higher. The use of “unless” in claim 1 and 12 and
“at least a portion” in claim 1 indicates that the terms “inhibited” and
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

8

“inhibits” in the claims do not encompass a “slowing down” of a release
when the pH is below 3.5 (which would make “at least a portion”
superfluous in claim 1), but rather refers to no release of “at least a portion”
(claim 1) or all (claim 12) of the drug “unless” the dosage form is at a pH of
3.5 or higher.
Although Petitioner does not offer a construction of the term “acid
inhibitor,” Patent Owner contends Petitioner mistakenly characterizes the
term to include prostaglandins, such as misoprostol. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing
Pet. 28). Patent Owner argues that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of
‘acid inhibitor’ . . . excludes prostaglandins” because the “’996 specification
plainly distinguishes PPIs, describing them as ‘acid inhibitors,’ from
synthetic prostaglandins, describing them as ‘cytoprotective agents.’” Id.
(citing Ex. 1001, 1:53–57). Patent Owner cites and compares passages of
the specification in support of this proposition as follows:
(Compare Ex. 1001 at 1:53-57 (“In general, more potent and
longer lasting acid inhibitors, such as proton pump inhibitors,
are thought to be more protective during chronic administration
of NSAIDs than shorter acting agents, e.g., histamine H2
receptor antagonists . . . .”) with id. at 2:57-63 (“Other attempts
to produce an NSAID therapy with less gastrointestinal toxicity
have involved the concomitant administration of a
cytoprotective agent” including ArthrotecTM which “contains
misoprostol (a cytoprotective prostaglandin) and the NSAID
diclofenac.”).)
Prelim. Resp. 8–9.
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

9

Nevertheless, the specification states that “[t]he term ‘acid inhibitor’
refers to agents that inhibit gastric acid secretion and increase gastric pH”
(Ex. 1001, 3:38–40), that preferred acid inhibiters are H2-blockers, such as
famotidine (id. at 3:40–47), and “[o]ther preferred agents that may be
effectively used as acid inhibitors are the proton pump inhibitors” (id. at
3:48–51). Thus, the specification describes H2-blockers and PPIs as
illustrative, rather than exclusive, acid inhibitors.
Moreover, even if we assume arguendo that the specification
distinguishes the claimed invention from ArthrotecTM (a composition
comprising a combination of misoprostol and the NSAID diclofenac)
(Prelim. Resp. 8–9), the distinction is not unambiguously based on the
presence of misoprostol in the composition—it could just as well be that the
amount of misoprostol in the composition is insufficient to raise gastric pH
to 3.5 or more, as required by all the challenged claims.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “acid inhibitor” excludes prostaglandins in general, or
misoprostol in particular.
B. Asserted Obviousness over Goldman, Remington, and Lindberg
1. Goldman (Ex. 1004)
Goldman teaches that “[t]he symptoms of overindulgence due to
excessive or inappropriate intake of food and/or alcoholic beverage are well
known and include headache as well as indigestion, upper abdominal
discomfort, bloating, heartburn or pyrosis.” Ex. 1004, 1:28–32. “The
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

10

treatment of the symptoms of overindulgence often requires the co-
administration of an analgesic to relieve the headache along with an agent to
reduce gastric acidity which is generally believed to cause the indigestion
and heartburn.” Id. at 2:52–56.
In order to “more effectively treat all the symptoms concurrently” (id.
at 2:67–68), Goldman discloses “a pharmaceutical composition for treating
the symptoms of overindulgence . . . [comprising] a combination of non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or acetaminophen and a histamine receptor
blocker and/or a proton pump inhibitor composition” (id. at 1:10–16).
Goldman teaches that acceptable histamine receptor (e.g., H2) blockers
include famotidine (id.at 3:27), acceptable proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)
include omeprazole (id.), and acceptable NSAIDs include naproxen and
piroxicam (id. at 3:17–22).
According to Goldman, “statistical methods are used to show that on
the average, acetaminophen or non-steroidal inflammatory agents with H1
histamine and/or H2 histamine receptor blocking drugs are more efficacious”
in treating the symptoms of overindulgence. Id. at 5:51–65. Finally,
Goldman discloses “chewable and liquid dosage forms” (id. at 6:4–5), and
further teaches that “[v]arious conventional techniques for preparing
medicament tablets or caplets can be employed as would be known to those
skilled in the art as is disclosed for example by Remington’s Pharmaceutical
Sciences.”7 Id. at 6:26–30.

7 This is the same Remington publication submitted as Exhibit 1005.
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

11

2. Remington (Ex. 1005)
Remington discusses generally the production of oral solid dosage
forms, such as tablets and capsules, and the many considerations that
influence the choice of a particular dosage form. Ex. 1005, 1603–33.
Among the many dosage forms mentioned, Remington discusses various
coated tablets, including enteric-coated tablets—“compressed tablets coated
with substances that resist solution in gastric fluid but disintegrate in the
intestine.” Id. at 1604.
Remington teaches that “[e]nteric coatings can be used for tablets
containing drug substances which are inactivated or destroyed in the
stomach, for those which irritate the mucosa, or as a means of delayed
release of the medication.” Id. Remington further teaches that tablets may
be coated in order to “[r]educ[e] the risk of interaction between incompatible
components . . . by using coated forms of one or more of the offending
ingredients (particularly active compounds).” Id. at 1633. The reference
states that enteric coatings “can be used to give a simple repeat-action effect
where unprotected drug coated over the enteric coat is released in the
stomach, while the remainder, being protected by the coating, is released
further down the gastrointestinal tract.” Id. at 1637.
3. Lindberg (Ex. 1007)
Lindberg discloses omeprazole and pure crystalline enantiomeric salts
of the same, including a magnesium salt of S-omeprazole, esomeprazole, in
the form of a “dosage unit.” Ex. 1007, 1:17–63, 5:25–27; Ex. 1040, 2:14–
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

12

18. Lindberg further discloses that “oral and parenteral dosages will be in
the range of 5 to 500 mg per day of active substance.” Ex. 1007, 6:21–25.
Lindberg teaches that “[o]meprazole and its alkaline salts are effective
gastric acid secretion inhibitors, and are useful as antiulcer agents.” Id. at
1:22–24. Lindberg states that its “novel salts of single enantiomers of
omeprazole” provide “improved pharmacokinetic and metabolic properties.”
Id. at 1:50–55.
4. Analysis
Petitioner contends that Goldman discloses the combined use of acid
inhibitors with NSAIDs, such as naproxen, to prevent the incidence of
gastric ulcers and bleeding resulting from the use of the NSAIDs. Pet. 11–
12. Petitioner also argues that an ordinary artisan would have known that
“acid inhibitors are a well-known class of drugs that provide gastric acid
inhibiting efficacy.” Id. at 12. Thus, according to Petitioner, an ordinary
artisan would have had a reason, with a reasonable expectation of success,
for “substituting different acid inhibitor compounds into a given
combination therapy formulation,” including with “more effective
compounds, such as PPIs, over previously known, less therapeutically
effective compounds, such as prostaglandins and H2 blockers.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–67). In addition, according to Petitioner, it would have been
obvious to substitute Goldman’s PPI omeprazole with Lindberg’s PPI
esomeprazole because it was known that the “enantiomeric magnesium salt
of omeprazole” would have provided “improved pharmacokinetic and
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

13

metabolic properties.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:50–63; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 68–69), 24.
Petitioner also contends that Goldman would have provided an
ordinary artisan with a reason “to look to conventional techniques for
preparing medicament tablets as set forth in Remington,” which Goldman
incorporates by reference. Id. at 11, 15, 22–23. Petitioner points to where
Remington teaches that an enteric coating can be used to give an effect
“where unprotected drug . . . coated over the enteric coat is released in the
stomach, while the remainder . . . , being protected by the coating, is
released further down the gastrointestinal tract.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1005,
1637), 25. Petitioner also contends that Remington teaches using enteric
coatings to delay the release of drugs, such as those that “may cause nausea
or bleeding by irritating the gastric mucosa (eg, aspirin . . .),” and that many
enteric coatings “remain undissociated in the low pH environment of the
stomach, but readily ionize when the pH rises to about 4 or 5.” Id. at 16
(citing Ex. 1005, 1637), 22–23.
Patent Owner responds that Goldman “does not disclose formulations
with an immediate release acid inhibitor and a delayed release NSAID that
would provide coordinated release,” or that “coordinated release of an acid
inhibitor with an NSAID is in any way desirable.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent
Owner also contends that Petitioner “fails to identify any specific passage in
Remington supporting a motivation to combine the Goldman and Lindberg
references.” Id.
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

14

In addition, Patent Owner contends that “Lindberg teaches that
esomeprazole must be enteric coated to protect it from the acidic
environment of the stomach,” because it states that granules and tablets of
esomeprazole “may be coated with an enteric coating which protects the
active compound from acid catalyzed degradation as long as the dosage form
remains in the stomach.” Id. at 18; Ex. 1007, 5:35–39. Patent Owner also
contends that because “PPIs were well known in the art to be acid labile,” an
ordinary artisan would have coated a PPI with an enteric coating, as taught
in Remington, rather than use a non-enteric coated PPI, such as
esomeprazole. Prelim. Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1005, 1604).
We agree that Petitioner has not established that the teachings of
Goldman, Remington, and Lindberg would have given an ordinary artisan a
reason to formulate a tablet with the structural and functional features
required by the challenged claims. Although Goldman discloses a
combination dosage form comprising a PPI and NSAID (discussed above),
Petitioner does not point to anything in Goldman that describes or suggests
adequately why one would have prepared, for any reason, a composition as
claimed, where at least some PPI (i.e., esomeprazole) is released regardless
of pH and the release of at least some NSAID (i.e., naproxen) is inhibited
unless the pH is 3.5 or higher (e.g., via a coating).
Moreover, although Goldman incorporates Remington’s discussion of
oral solid dosage forms by reference (Ex. 1004, 6:26–33), Petitioner does
not identify anything in Goldman that points to any particular dosage form
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

15

among the many disclosed by Remington. Goldman’s citation to Remington
generally in relation to “[v]arious conventional techniques for preparing
medicament tablets or caplets” does not persuade us that an ordinary artisan
would have made the connection that Petitioner contends. Id.; Pet 11, 14–
16, 22–25. Nor does Petitioner explain adequately how Lindberg remedies
the deficiencies discussed above in relation to Goldman and Remington.
Having considered the evidence and arguments presented in the
Petition, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claims 1 and 12, or their
dependent claims, on the basis of obviousness over Goldman, Remington,
and Lindberg.
C. Asserted Obviousness over Gimet, Goldman, and Remington
1. Gimet (Ex. 1006)
Gimet teaches that NSAIDs have “high therapeutic value especially
for the treatment of inflammatory conditions such as . . . osteoarthritis (OA)
and rheumatoid arthritis,” but “also exhibit undesirable side effects.” Ex.
1006, 1:20–24. “An especially undesirable side effect of the administration
of NSAIDs is the ulcerogenic effects generally associated with chronic use.”
Id. at 1:24–27. “NSAID induced ulcers in the stomach . . . generally exhibit
few or no symptoms and may cause dangerous bleeding when undetected
. . . [and] [i]n some instances . . . can prove fatal.” Id. at 1:29–33.
According to Gimet, “[c]ertain prostaglandins have been shown to
prevent NSAID induced ulcers.” Id. at 1:39–40. Misoprostol, for example,
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

16

“is a pharmaceutically acceptable prostaglandin which has been accepted for
use in the treatment of NSAID induced ulcers.” Id. at 1:43–49.
Gimet discloses a pharmaceutical composition comprising a tablet
having an inner core and an outer mantle coating surrounding the inner core,
designed to “counter (by inhibiting, reducing or preventing) the ulcerogenic
side effects attendant to NSAID administration.” Id. at 1:61–63. The inner
core consists of an NSAID—disclofenac or piroxicam—and the outer mantel
consists of a prostaglandin—e.g., misoprostol. Id. at 1:11–17, 39–47.
Figure 2 of Gimet, reproduced below, depicts tablet 16 in cross-
section.

Figure 2 of Gimet depicts tablet 16. Tablet 16 includes an NSAID—
diclofenac or piroxicam—in inner core 18. Enteric coating 20 surrounds
core 18, and mantle 22—consisting of a prostaglandin, e.g., misoprostol—
surrounds the coated inner core. Id. at 6:24–44.
The enteric coating “can be formulated from any suitable enteric
coating material,” and “aids in segregating the NSAID from the
prostaglandin and in directing the dissolution of the NSAID core in the
lower G.I. tract as opposed to the stomach.” Id. at 6:29–30, 33–36.
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

17

“When the prostaglandin is misoprostol . . . [it] is present in an
amount from about 50 to about 500 mcg and preferably from about 100 to
about 200 mcg.” Id. at 6:20–23.
2. Analysis
Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have known that
both Gimet and Goldman disclose a combination therapy oral unit dosage
form comprising an acid inhibitor (e.g., misoprostol, a prostaglandin, in
Gimet) in combination with an NSAID (e.g., naproxen in Goldman). Pet. 28
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 236, 237). In relation to naproxen, Petitioner also argues
that an ordinary artisan would have had a reason, as well as a reasonable
expectation of success, to substitute different NSAID compounds—i.e.,
replace diclofenac or piroxicam in Gimet’s composition, as shown in Figure
2, with naprozen disclosed in Goldman—“because doing so would be a
simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 238, 239), 31–32.
The only evidence that Petitioner cites for its assertion regarding
“predictable results” in relation to NSAIDs is Dr. Shargel’s Declaration at
paragraphs 238 and 239, which repeat the statements presented in the
Petition on this point, without citing any evidence themselves. Id.
Conclusory assertions by Petitioner, merely repeated in conclusory and
unsupported statements by an expert witness in support, are not persuasive
here. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

18

underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or
no weight.”).
In relation to esomeprazole, Petitioner also argues an ordinary artisan
would have had a reason, with a reasonable expectation of success, to
substitute different acid inhibitors—i.e., replace misoprostol in Gimet’s
composition with esomeprazole disclosed in Lindberg—“where the acid
inhibitor compound contributes its individual therapeutic attributes (e.g.,
acid inhibition and gastric pH raising) to the combination.” Pet. 29–30
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 241). Petitioner further contends that an ordinary artisan
would have had a reason, with a reasonable expectation of success, “in
employing more recently obtained and therapeutically more effective
compounds, such as PPIs, over previously known, less therapeutically
effective compounds, such as prostaglandins and H2 blockers.” Id. at 30
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 242).8
Petitioner also argues that it would have been obvious to select
“Lindberg’s disclosed PPI esomeprazole and substitute it for Gimet’s
disclosed acid inhibitor (prostaglandin) because Goldman specifically
teaches that ‘[p]roton pump inhibitors have been recently introduced as
effective gastric acid inhibitors.’” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:25–27; Ex.
1003 ¶ 243). Petitioner also points to teachings in Lindberg indicating that

8 In support of these contentions, Petitioner once again cites paragraphs in
Dr. Shargel’s Declaration that simply repeat statements presented in the
Petition on these points, without citing supporting evidence themselves. Pet.
29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 241, 242).
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

19

its “novel salts of single enantiomers of omeprazole” provide “improved
pharmacokinetic and metabolic properties” and “high stability against
racemization.” Id. at 30–31 (quoting Ex. 1007, 1:50–63, 3:48–55) (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 244, 245), 33 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:50–63; Ex. 1003 ¶ 262), 43
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 351, 352).
In response, Patent Owner points to a number of references indicating
that an ordinary artisan would have understood that PPIs were acid labile
and should be protected from degradation in acidic environments, such as
the stomach. Prelim. Resp. 23–25 (citing Ex. 2003, 15, 17; Ex. 2009, 3;
Ex. 2010, 2; Ex. 2011, 5; Ex. 1048, 2, 3, 5). For example, a review article
by Stedman et al., published in 2000, comparing the “pharmacokinetics, acid
suppression and efficacy of proton pump inhibitors,” indicates that PPIs “are
all acid-labile, so when administered orally they must be formulated in an
enteric coating to protect them from rapid degradation in the stomach. They
are rapidly absorbed in the duodenum.” Ex. 2009, 1 (Title), 3. Similarly, in
an article published in 1992, Bell et al. state in relation to the related parent
compound of esomeprazole: “As omeprazole is acid-labile, it is formulated
as enteric-coated granules dispensed in a gelatine capsule.” Ex. 2010, 2.
In addition, in an article published in 1985, Pilbrant et al. teach that
“[o]meprazole degrades very rapidly in water solutions at low pH-values.”
Ex. 1048, 1. In this context, Pilbrant et al. teaches the use of an “enteric-
coated dosage form, which releases omeprazole for absorption in the small
intestine,” while stating that a conventional oral dosage “was ruled out”
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

20

because “more than half of the omeprazole in a rapidly dissolving dosage
form degrades in the stomach.” Id. at 2.
As an initial matter, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes
adequately that esomeprazole administered in an non-enteric-coated form
(thereby allowing it to be released regardless of pH) would have obtained
“improved pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and therapeutic properties” as
compared to misoprostol in any formulation. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1007,
1:50–63; Ex. 1003 ¶ 262). For example, we are not persuaded that Lindberg
indicates such an improvement. Rather, Lindberg suggests that
esomeprazole may have improved properties over omeprazole (a related
PPI). Ex. 1007, 1:17–63.
Moreover, even if we assume that one would have understood that
prostaglandins and H2 blockers were “less therapeutically effective
compounds” than PPIs (Pet. 30), Petitioner has not explained adequately
why one would have had reason to make the composition taught in Gimet,
e.g., in Figure 2, with a PPI rather than a prostaglandin in “mantle 22”
located on the outside of “enteric coating 20” surrounding “inner core 18” of
an NSAID. Ex. 1006, 6:15–44, Fig. 2. Petitioner does not address teachings
in the art indicating that PPIs were acid liable, nor explain adequately why
one would have used any PPI (much less esomeprazole) in place of a
prostaglandin in an uncoated form (as taught in Gimet), when other relevant
references taught the use of PPIs with an enteric coating to avoid
degradation of the drug. See, e.g., Ex. 2009, 3; Ex. 2010, 2; Ex. 1048, 2
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

21

(discussed above); see also Prelim. Resp. 23–28 (discussing other
references).
Petitioner’s contention that Lindberg discloses “uncoated dosage units
of esomeprazole in the form of tablets” and “esomeprazole pellets ‘coated
with a solution of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose’” does not persuade us
otherwise. Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:25–36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 267 (citing same)),
44 (citing Ex. 1007, 13:3–5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 358–360). For example,
immediately after the first quoted passage in Lindberg (Ex. 1007, 5:25–36),
Lindberg teaches that “[g]ranules and tablets may be coated with an enteric
coating which protects the active compound from acid catalyzed degradation
as long as the dosage form remains in the stomach.” Ex. 1007, 5:36–39.
Likewise, in relation to the second quoted passage (id. at 13:3–5) included in
Example 13 in Lindberg, Example 13 also teaches preparing an enteric
coated tablet and a capsule comprising pellets with a second coating (id. at
12:13–13:15). Thus, even Lindberg suggests using an enteric or some type
of protective coating when administering esomeprazole. Petitioner does not
persuade us that Lindberg adequately suggests a composition where at least
a portion of esomeprazole “is released regardless of the pH” (e.g, in the
stomach where pH is low), much less such a composition that also includes
other elements recited in the challenged claims.
Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not
established that the teachings of Gimet, Goldman, and Lindberg would have
given an ordinary artisan a reason to formulate a composition with the
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

22

structural and functional features required by the challenged claims. Prelim.
Resp. 22–29.
Having considered the evidence and arguments presented in the
Petition, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claims 1 and 12, or their
dependent claims, on the basis of obviousness over Gimet, Goldman, and
Lindberg.
D. Asserted Anticipation by the ’255 Publication
As noted by both parties, the ’996 patent is a fifth generation
descendent of an application (the ’216 application) that published as the ’255
Publication (Ex. 1008), and the ’996 patent claims priority to the ’216
application and its parent provisional application. Pet. 48–49; Prelim. Resp.
31–32; Ex. 1001, 1:7–21. Nonetheless, Petitioner asserts that the ’255
Publication is prior art to the ’996 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 48–
49.
In this regard, Petitioner first notes that the ’255 Publication published
more than one year before the filing of its child continuation-in-part
application (the ’320 application) in the chain. Id. Petitioner then contends
that the ’216 application and its parent provisional (“the pre-2003
applications”) do not provide written description support of the claims of the
’996 patent, which creates a “break in the priority.” Id. at 50. Petitioner
supports this contention with its arguments that the claims of the ’996 patent
are broad enough to encompasses compositions that “release at least a
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

23

portion of the naproxen immediately at any pH,” “ʻinhibit’ or slow down the
release of all of the naproxen at a pH below 3.5 until the pH reaches 3.5 or
higher,” and “do not have a ‘coordinated release’ or sequential release of the
esomeprazole and the naproxen.” Id. By contrast, according to Petitioner,
the pre-2003 applications only support compositions that “release none of
the NSAID immediately,” “ʻprevent’ or stop the release of all of the NSAID
until reaching a pH of 3.5 or higher,” and “have a ‘coordinated release’ or
sequential release of the acid inhibitor and the NSAID.” Id.
To put it another way, Petitioner essentially argues that the pre-2003
applications provide written description support of only a species (release of
all naproxen only when pH is 3.5 or higher) of a broader genus recited in the
claims in the ’996 patent (encompassing release of at least some NSAID
when pH is below 3.5 and when pH is 3.5 or higher), but not written
description support of that genus. Id. at 50–51. Moreover, Petitioner
suggests that because a species anticipates a genus, the species disclosed in
the ’255 Publication anticipates the genus recited in the challenged claims in
the ’996 patent. Id. at 51–60.
As an intial matter, we note that Petitioner’s arguments logically
apply to claim 1 and dependent claims 3–11, but not dependent claim 2 or
claim 12 or its dependent claims. Claim 1 of the ’996 patent recites that the
“release of at least a portion of said naproxen is inhibited unless the pH of
said medium is 3.5 or higher” (emphasis added), which Petitioner suggests
encompasses the release of at least some naproxen when the pH is below
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

24

3.5. By contrast, dependent claim 2 and claim 12 and its dependent claims
recite “a coating that inhibits [] release [of naproxen] from [the dosage form
or core layer] unless said dosage form is in a medium with a pH of 3.5 or
higher,” without reciting “at least a portion.” As noted above, the term
“inhibits” in the claims means to prevent (stop), hinder, or restrain.
Petitioner does not explain adequately how claims 2 and 12–19 encompass
the release of at least some naproxen when the pH is below 3.5 when those
claims require inhibiting the release of naproxen (and not a portion of
naproxen) at that lower pH. Pet. 50–51.
In an inter partes review, the burden is on the petitioner to show a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability.
35 U.S.C. § 314(a). With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective filing
date, however, a patent owner is not presumed to be entitled to the earlier
filing dates of ancestral applications that do not share the same disclosure,
such as in a continuation-in-part situation. Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v.
SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116, slip op. at 9 (Paper 8) (PTAB Apr. 22.
2014); see also PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299,
1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that once a defendant establishes that a
reference is § 102(b) prior art, burden is on patent owner to come forward
with evidence proving priority to an earlier filing date). Nonetheless, a
petitioner first must raise the issue by identifying, specifically, the features,
claims, and ancestral applications allegedly lacking written description
support for the claims based on the identified features. Focal Therapeutics,
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

25

Case IPR2014-00116, slip op. at 10 (Paper 8). Then, the patent owner must
make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner
that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised
by the petitioner. Id.
Here, Petitioner cites nothing in the record to support its assertions
regarding a lack of written description in the pre-2003 applications, other
than to refer to those pre-2003 applications generally. Pet. 47–51. When
asserting a “break in priority,” Petitioner does not identify, specifically, the
features or claims that allegedly lack written description support. Instead,
Petitioner discusses in very general terms what “the ’996 Patent claims are
broad enough to encompass” and what the “pre-2003 applications disclose”
(id. at 50–51) without referring to any specific challenged claim or providing
specific citations to any specification at issue.
Even if we assume Petitioner adequately raises the issue, however, we
are persuaded that Patent Owner provides a sufficient showing of
entitlement to the filing date of at least the ’216 application (the ’255
Publication), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the points and
contentions raised by Petitioner. For example, Patent Owner points to
paragraphs 10, 13, and 82 in the ’255 Publication. Prelim. Resp. 35–38
(citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 10, 13, 82). Paragraph 10 describes a release of NSAID
that “minimizes the adverse effects of the NSAID on the gastroduodenal
mucosa.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Similarly, paragraph 13
describes “preferably provid[ing] for coordinated drug release” that
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

26

“reduces the deleterious effects of the NSAID on the gastroduodenal
mucosa.” Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). Paragraph 13 also describes a “most
preferred form” where an inner core is “surrounded by a polymeric barrier
coating that does not dissolve unless the surrounding medium is at a pH of at
least 3.5.” Id. (emphasis added). Paragraph 82 in Example 7 also refers to a
coordinated delivery dosage that provides “the delayed release” of naproxen.
Id. ¶ 82 (emphasis added).
Although we recognize that the ’255 Publication (and indeed the ’996
patent specification itself) does not use the exact words “at least a portion”
in relation to a release of naproxen, the ’255 Publication “does not have to
describe exactly the subject matter claimed.” Vas–Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008,
1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Rather, the description must “‘reasonably convey[]
to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter.’” Id. at 1563 (quoting Ralston Purina Co. v. Far–
Mar–Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Thus, we consider
whether the ’255 Publication as a whole conveys to one of ordinary skill in
the art, either explicitly or inherently, that the inventors of the ’996 patent
invented the subject matter claimed in the challenged claims. Reiffin v.
Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Vas–Cath, 935 F.2d
at 1563).
Here, words such as “minimizes,” “reduces,” and “delayed” in
paragraphs 10, 13, and 82 in the ’255 Publication, as well as disclosure of
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

27

different preferred forms in paragraph 13, indicate that the inventors
possessed a dosage form and/or coordinated drug release where a portion
(e.g., a small portion) of the NSAID (e.g., “most preferred NSAID”
naproxen (Ex. 1008 ¶ 12)) was released when the pH of the medium was
below 3.5, even if most or nearly all of the drug was not released until the
pH was 3.5 or higher. See, e.g., id. ¶ 13 (also stating in one sentence that in
“a preferred embodiment, the unit dosage form is a multilayer tablet, having
an outer layer comprising the acid inhibitor and an inner core which
comprises the NSAID” without referring to when or under what conditions
NSAID is released).
Moreover, every species in a genus need not be described in order for
the genus to meet the written description requirement. Regents of U.
California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing
Utter v. Hiraga, 845 F.2d 993, 998–99 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). In this case, the
genus at issue has two easily identified species, i.e., inhibiting the release of
all or a portion of a drug unless a pH is reached, as opposed to a complex
chemical genus, for example, encompassing a large number of possible
species. Id.; see also Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d
1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that whether disclosure of a species
supports a genus “depends upon the state of the art and the nature and
breadth of the genus,” finding sufficient support where the genus consisted
of only two species). We are persuaded that the ’255 Publication as a whole
conveys to one of ordinary skill in the that the inventors of the ’996 patent
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

28

invented the subject matter claimed in the challenged claims, i.e., a
composition where release of all or at least a portion of naproxen is inhibited
unless the pH is 3.5 or higher.
The paragraphs in the ’255 Publication cited by Patent Owner show
an entitlement to the filing date of the ’216 application (the ’255
Publication) in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the general
points and contentions raised by Petitioner (Pet. 47–52). Because Patent
Owner establishes sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’996 patent
properly claim priority to the ’216 application, the ’255 Publication is not
prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Having considered the evidence and arguments presented in the
Petition, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to claims 1–19 on the basis that the
’255 Publication anticipates those claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
E. Motion to Seal
Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 14) was accompanied by
a Motion to File Under Seal its Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2012, an
associated exhibit (Paper 16, “Motion to Seal”), as well as a redacted version
of the Preliminary Response (Paper 13).
Because we do not rely on the material Patent Owner seeks to seal, we
decline to address the merits of the Motion to Seal. Patent Owner is
authorized to file a motion to expunge any material that it seeks to keep
IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

29

confidential within thirty (30) days of the date of this Decision, or within
thirty (30) days of a decision on rehearing, if rehearing is requested.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Petition
establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
that claims 1–19 of the ’996 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) or § 102(b).

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is
instituted.

IPR2015-01344
Patent 8,858,996 B2

30

For PETITIONER:
Amy E. LaValle
Jerry C. Harris, Jr.
Rodney B. Carroll
CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
alavalle@conleyrose.com
jcharris@conleyrose.com
rcarroll@conleyrose.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Ricardo Rodriguez
Thomas Blinka
COOLEY LLP
zIPR2015-01241@cooley.com

Dennis Bennett
Lauren L. Stevens
GLOBAL PATENT GROUP, LLC
vlechner@globalpatentgroup.com
lstevens@globalpatentgroup.com

Margaret Sampson
Stephen Hash
Jeffrey S. Gritton
BAKER BOTTS LLP
margaret.sampson@bakerbotts.com
PozenVimovoBB@BakerBotts.com
jeff.gritton@bakerbotts.com