John C. Jarosz
`
`Washington, DC
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ____________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________________________________
`
` LUPIN, LTC. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.,
`
` and BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` ____________________________________
`
` IPR2015-01087 (US Patent No. 8,751,131)
`
` IPR2015-01099 (US Patent No. 8,669,290)
`
` IPR2015-01100 (US Patent No. 8,927,606)
`
` IPR2015-01105 (US Patent No. 8,871,813)
`
` DEPOSITION OF:
`
` JOHN C. JAROSZ
`
` Wednesday, March 16, 2016
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Page 1
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
` Counsel for Petitioners 7, 203
` Counsel for Patent Owner 172
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
` JOHN C. JAROSZ, called for cross-examination by
`
`counsel for Petitioners, pursuant to notice, at the
`
`office of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`
`Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington,
`
`D.C., before SUSAN L. CIMINELLI, CRR, RPR, a Notary
`
`Public in and for the District of Columbia,
`
`beginning at 9:08 a.m., when were present on behalf
`
`of the respective parties:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`On behalf of Petitioners:
` CHIEMI D. SUZUKI, ESQUIRE
` Crowell & Moring, LLP
` 590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
` New York, New York 10022-2524
` (212) 803-4050
` csuzuki@crowell.com
` -and-
` DEBORAH H. YELLIN, ESQUIRE
` Crowell & Moring, LLP
` 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
` (202) 624-2947
` dyellin@crowell.com
`On behalf of Patent Owner:
` JUSTIN J. HASFORD, ESQUIRE
` Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
` (202) 408-4000
` justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Page 5
`
` INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Senju 2130 John C. Jarosz declarations in IPRs
`
` 2015-01097, 01099, 01100, 01105 39
`
`Senju 2052 Alkharashi, et al. article 152
`
`Senju 2157 Management Science (01097) 137
`
`Senju 2142 September 2000 Journal of Industrial
`
` Economics (01099) 144
`
`Senju 2143 Ching, et al. article (01097) 146
`
`Senju 2119 Rajpal, et al. (01097) 148
`
`Senju 2221 Selecting an NSAID, Jackson
`
` PROL028722-748 (01100) 156
`
`Senju 2160 Ophthalmology Times Donnenfield
`
` (01100) 159
`
`Senju 2232 Guha, et al. (01100) 118
`
`Senju 2191 ASCRS EyeWorld (01097) 159
`
`Senju 2228 Bromfenac Ophthalmic Solution 0.07%
`
` Dosed Once Daily for Cataract
`
` Surgery (01097) 163
`
`Senju 2218 Bausch & Lomb Press Release
`
` (01100) 167
`
`Lupin 1076 Notice of Cross-Examination 172
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Lupin 1077 Arise Health Plan 172
`
`Lupin 1078 2015 Aetna Pharmacy Plan Drug List
`
` Three Tier Open 172
`
`Lupin 1079 Urban article 172
`
`Lupin 1080 Galderma Laboratories v Tolmar 172
`
`Lupin 1081 Rajpal ProPublica 172
`
`Lupin 1082 Jackson ProPublica 172
`
`Lupin 1083 172 Donnenfield ProPublica 172
`
`Lupin 1084 Silverstein ProPublica 172
`
`Lupin 1085 Trattler ProPublica 172
`
`Senju 2323 Reply Expert Report of Jarosz on
`
` Objective Indicia of
`
` Non-obviousness - IPR2015-01097,
`
` 01099, 01100 and 01105 178
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the firm, and I help in management of the firm.
`
` Q. Did these engagements of the firm include
`
`litigation consulting?
`
` A. Sometimes.
`
` Q. What percentage of your work involves
`
`litigation consulting?
`
` A. Are you putting that question to me
`
`personally or as a representative of Analysis Group?
`
` Q. I'll put it to you personally.
`
` A. It changes of course from time to time.
`
`But over the last 20 years, something on the order
`
`of 85 percent of my work has been in the context of
`
`pending litigation, likely litigation, arbitration
`
`or mediation.
`
` Q. What is the other 15 percent?
`
` A. It's outside the context of a dispute.
`
` Q. Mr. Jarosz, I introduced myself to you
`
`off the record, but my name is Chiemi Suzuki, and
`
`I'm with the law firm of Crowell & Moring. We
`
`represent the Lupin Petitioners against Senju in IPR
`
`2015-01097 regarding U.S. Patent Number 8,751,131;
`
`IPR 2015-01099 regarding U.S. Patent Number
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`8,669,290; IPR 2015-01100 regarding U.S. Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Whereupon,
`
` JOHN C. JAROSZ,
`
`was called as a witness by counsel for Petitioners,
`
`and having been duly sworn, was examined and
`
`testified as follows:
`
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`BY MS. SUZUKI:
`
` Q. Can you please state your name for the
`
`record?
`
` A. John C. Jarosz.
`
` Q. And what is your address?
`
` A. My work address is Analysis Group, 800
`
`17th Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C., 20006. My
`
`home address is 703 Ninovan, which is spelled
`
`N-I-N-O-V-A-N, Road, Vienna, Virginia, 22180.
`
` Q. What is your current place of employment?
`
` A. Analysis Group.
`
` Q. What is your title?
`
` A. Managing principal.
`
` Q. What do you do as a managing principal?
`
` A. I help the firm conduct engagements of
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Number 9 -- excuse me, 8,927,606; and IPR
`
`2015-001105 regarding U.S. Patent Number 8,871,813.
`
`If I refer to those IPR proceedings today as these
`
`IPRs or this IPR, will you understand what I mean?
`
` A. I think so, yes.
`
` Q. I'm going to ask you a number of
`
`questions today and you're to answer the questions
`
`to the best of your ability. Do you understand
`
`that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Is there any reason that you cannot
`
`testify truthfully today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. It's important that you understand each
`
`question that I ask. If for any reason you do not
`
`understand the question, please tell me and I will
`
`rephrase the question into one you can understand.
`
`Will you tell me if you do not understand the
`
`question that I ask?
`
` A. I'll tell you if I don't think I
`
`understand your question, but in answering any
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`question of yours, I'm not necessarily acknowledging
`
`that my understanding of your question is the same
`
`as your understanding of your question. If I think
`
`I understand it, I will answer it. If I think I
`
`need clarification, I'll ask for that, but of
`
`course, we are not one and the same person, and so
`
`I'm not sure that your understanding of a question
`
`will be equivalent to mine.
`
` Q. It is also important that you finish your
`
`answer before I begin my next question. If I
`
`inadvertently cut you off before you've had a chance
`
`to finish your answer, I apologize in advance, but I
`
`do want you to have the chance to finish your
`
`answer. Will you tell me if you have not finished
`
`an answer at the time that I ask my next question?
`
` A. I will attempt to.
`
` Q. Now, please recognize there is a court
`
`reporter here recording the deposition. Please keep
`
`two things in mind. First, the reporter must be
`
`able to hear you. Secondly, the reporter can only
`
`record one person as a time so we should try to
`
`avoid cross talking of more than one person as much
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`been in my capacity as an expert witness.
`
` Q. Without getting into details, what was
`
`the subject matter of the deposition where you were
`
`a fact witness?
`
` A. I had done, alongside people at my firm,
`
`an evaluation of certain IP rights and wrote a
`
`report or white paper associated with that, and was
`
`asked fact questions about that report as I recall.
`
` Q. Were the IP rights patent rights?
`
` A. I'm not remembering exactly, but it's
`
`possible.
`
` Q. What year was that deposition?
`
` A. It was probably 10 years ago. It might
`
`have been a little bit more. It might have been a
`
`little bit less.
`
` Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions about
`
`your preparation for this deposition. And I'm going
`
`to attempt not to tread into privileged territory.
`
`Yes or no. Did you do anything to prepare for
`
`today's deposition?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Without revealing privileged information,
`
`Page 13
`
`Page 11
`
`as possible. Do you understand that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Also the reporter cannot take down nods
`
`of the head, hand gestures or any other non-verbal
`
`responses, so on behalf of the reporter and me,
`
`please respond loudly and clearly at all times.
`
`Will you do so?
`
` A. I will respond to your questions
`
`verbally. I may occasionally nod my head or make a
`
`hand gesture, but I don't mean for any of those to
`
`be picked up on the transcript.
`
` Q. Have you had your deposition taken
`
`before?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. On how many occasions?
`
` A. Over the years, I've probably been
`
`deposed on something like 220 occasions. I'm
`
`probably off, but reasonably close.
`
` Q. How many of those depositions have been
`
`in your capacity as an expert witness?
`
` A. All of those. Oh, no, there was one that
`
`I was a fact witness for, but all the others have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`what did you do to prepare?
`
` A. Everything I've done in this matter was
`
`with the thought that I may eventually give
`
`deposition testimony, so everything I've done on
`
`this matter is in some sense in preparation for this
`
`deposition.
`
` Q. Did you meet with counsel?
`
` A. Over the course of our engagement, yes.
`
` Q. Did you meet with counsel specifically
`
`regarding this deposition in the last several days
`
`up to today's deposition?
`
` A. Yes. Over the phone.
`
` Q. How many phone conversations?
`
` A. Over the last few days, have I had with
`
`counsel? Is that the question?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. I think one. Although I should mention
`
`that there was one in-person meeting.
`
` Q. When was the in-person meeting?
`
` A. It started about 40 minutes ago.
`
` Q. Do you recall when the phone conversation
`
`was?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. When was that?
`
` A. Yesterday.
`
` Q. How long was your phone conversation?
`
` A. About an hour.
`
` Q. Who was present on your phone
`
`conversation with counsel?
`
` A. Mr. Hasford and Ms. Lebeis.
`
` Q. Who is Ms. Lebeis?
`
` A. Jessica Lebeis is a lawyer for Finnegan
`
`who is working on this matter on behalf of the
`
`patentors.
`
` Q. And in addition to Mr. Hasford and
`
`Ms. Lebeis, was anyone else present on that phone
`
`conversation other than yourself?
`
` A. No. Not that I know of.
`
` Q. In the in-person meeting that was about
`
`40 minutes ago or started about 40 minutes ago, who
`
`was present at that meeting?
`
` A. Mr. Hasford and myself.
`
` Q. Anyone else in addition to you two?
`
` A. No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. No. Not that I recall.
`
` Q. Did you review deposition transcripts in
`
`advance of today's deposition in preparation for
`
`today's deposition?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Were those your own deposition
`
`transcripts?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you review any deposition transcripts
`
`of other people in preparation for today's
`
`deposition?
`
` A. We have looked at deposition transcripts
`
`over the course of our engagement, but over the last
`
`several days, the only transcripts that I've looked
`
`at are my two transcripts.
`
` Q. In answering the previous question, you
`
`said we have looked at deposition transcripts. Who
`
`is we?
`
` A. People at Analysis Group and myself that
`
`have worked on this matter.
`
` Q. What people at Analysis Group?
`
` A. The person who has been most intimately
`
`Page 17
`
`Page 15
`
` Q. Did you review documents in preparation
`
`for today's deposition?
`
` A. Again, everything I've done on this
`
`matter has been with the thought that I would be
`
`deposed, so yes, I have reviewed many documents.
`
` Q. During your telephone conference of, I
`
`believe it was yesterday, did you review documents?
`
` A. I don't know quite how to answer that
`
`besides saying during the call, we did make
`
`reference to my deposition transcript from a couple
`
`of weeks ago.
`
` Q. Do you recall what case that deposition
`
`transcript was a part of?
`
` A. I generally think of it as the PTAB
`
`matter and I think it was this case or set of cases
`
`in which InnoPharma took the lead in deposing me.
`
` Q. In addition to the deposition transcript,
`
`during that phone conversation, did you review to
`
`any other documents?
`
` A. No. Not that I recall.
`
` Q. In your in-person meeting today with
`
`counsel, did you review documents?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`involved in working with me has been Mike Nolan.
`
`Asula Belacova has been an important part of our
`
`team.
`
` Q. What is Mr. Nolan's position at Analysis
`
`Group?
`
` A. His title is manager.
`
` Q. What is Ms. Belacova's position at
`
`Analysis Group?
`
` A. Senior analyst.
`
` Q. You said that you have reviewed your two
`
`deposition transcripts. Which two deposition
`
`transcripts were you referring to?
`
` A. The one that was taken in the federal
`
`case and the one that was taken in the PTAB matter
`
`where I was questioned by a lawyer from InnoPharma.
`
` Q. The federal case you're talking about, is
`
`that Senju v. Watson and others?
`
` A. That sounds right to me.
`
` Q. And that's a case that's pending in New
`
`Jersey?
`
` A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
`
` Q. Other than counsel and your colleagues,
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Mr. Nolan and Ms. Belacova at Analysis Group, have
`
`you discussed this IPR with anyone else?
`
` A. Well, I've probably discussed it with
`
`other colleagues at Analysis Group. And I think I
`
`generally explained to my wife where I was going
`
`today, but we didn't talk about the substance of the
`
`matter.
`
` Q. In addition to your other colleagues at
`
`Analysis Group and possibly your wife, did you
`
`discuss this IPR with anyone else?
`
` A. Did you have on that list counsel and
`
`colleagues at Analysis Group?
`
` Q. Let me rephrase the question. In
`
`addition to your colleagues at Analysis Group, your
`
`colleagues Ms. Belacova and Mr. Nolan who you worked
`
`with, counsel, and possibly your wife, did you
`
`discuss this IPR with anyone else?
`
` A. Not that I recall. And just so that we
`
`are absolutely clear, Mr. Nolan and Ms. Belacova are
`
`colleagues of mine at Analysis Group.
`
` Q. I understand. In addition to Ms.
`
`Belacova and Mr. Nolan, did you work with anyone
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`efforts necessarily lead to success.
`
` Q. Did Ms. Belacova work under your
`
`direction in your work on this IPR?
`
` A. Generally, she did. Yes.
`
` Q. When you say generally yes, what do you
`
`mean?
`
` A. Well, I didn't have every conversation
`
`that she had on this matter. In other words, she
`
`was -- I'm responsible for all the people at
`
`Analysis Group who worked on this, and I provided
`
`all of them direction, but there certainly were
`
`points in time in which there were just interactions
`
`between Ms. Belacova and Mr. Nolan, for instance.
`
`They had a conversation or part of analysis that I
`
`was generally aware of, but wasn't involved in all
`
`the details.
`
` Q. Did Mr. Nolan work at your direction on
`
`this matter?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did Ms. Gumen work under your direction
`
`on this matter?
`
` A. Generally, yes. Again, not all of her
`
`Page 21
`
`Page 19
`
`else from Analysis Group on this IPR?
`
` A. Yes, I believe so.
`
` Q. Who else from Analysis Group did you work
`
`with on this IPR?
`
` A. As I sit here tight now, I do not recall
`
`who has all been involved. But we have had other
`
`analysts and senior analysts help with certain
`
`aspects of the various projects.
`
` Q. When you refer to various projects, what
`
`do you mean?
`
` A. The various IPRs and Federal District
`
`Court case. Well, there is one non-analyst that
`
`comes to mind and that is Anna Gumen at Analysis
`
`Group helped us with a certain piece of it as well.
`
` Q. What is Anna Gumen's title at Analysis
`
`Group?
`
` A. Associate.
`
` Q. And what aspect did Ms. Gumen assist on
`
`in your work on these matters?
`
` A. I recall that she helped us to do some
`
`research on the issue of pharmaceutical marketing
`
`and return to such efforts, and whether those
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`interactions on this matter involved me directly.
`
`Just as is the case with Ms. Belacova.
`
` Q. Do you know who Ms. Gumen would have
`
`worked with directly on this matter?
`
` A. A little bit with me, but a little bit
`
`more, as I recall, with Mr. Nolan.
`
` Q. Did Mr. Nolan take direction from anyone
`
`other than you on this matter?
`
` A. No. I oversaw and directed his work. Of
`
`course, he had interactions with counsel and looked
`
`at materials himself, but I was directly responsible
`
`for his work.
`
` Q. Did Ms. Belacova also have interactions
`
`with counsel on this matter?
`
` A. I don't recall if she did. It is
`
`possible that she had some, but those probably were
`
`limited interactions at best.
`
` Q. You mentioned Mr. Nolan had interactions
`
`with counsel. Were those in person? If you know.
`
` A. I think they were almost entirely, if not
`
`entirely over the phone. I'm not sure if you're
`
`calling that in person or not.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
` Q. Were you also involved in the phone
`
`conversations between Mr. Nolan and counsel?
`
` A. Some.
`
` Q. By some, do you mean half?
`
` A. I don't know the number.
`
` Q. Less than half?
`
` A. Again, I don't know the number.
`
` Q. More than half?
`
` A. I don't know the percentage.
`
` Q. And Ms. Gumen, did she have any
`
`interactions with counsel?
`
` A. I don't think so.
`
` Q. Other than your meeting today with
`
`counsel and your phone conference with counsel in
`
`the last several days -- let me rephrase that.
`
`Other than your meeting with counsel and your phone
`
`conversation with counsel recently, did you do
`
`anything else to prepare for today's deposition?
`
` A. Yes. Everything I've done on this matter
`
`was with the thought that I might be deposed.
`
` Q. Mr. Jarosz, I handed you a document, a
`
`multipage document labelled on the front,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: I've been involved in
`
`matters where Finnegan was counsel to the client and
`
`I was -- and our firm provided economic services to
`
`that same client in that same matter.
`
`BY MS. SUZUKI:
`
` Q. How many matters?
`
` A. How many matters have I worked alongside
`
`Finnegan? Is that the question? Over the years,
`
`it's been a couple or a few dozen. I don't know the
`
`exact number because I've, over the years, had
`
`something like 350 engagements. So it's a little
`
`bit hard to remember precisely how many I worked on
`
`with any particular set of lawyers, but I think a
`
`couple or a few dozen with people at Finnegan.
`
` Q. Was that 350 or 315?
`
` A. 50, though I could be off by a fair
`
`amount.
`
` Q. But who's counting. Have you worked with
`
`Mr. Hasford from Finnegan previously in your work as
`
`an expert on any case where Finnegan has been
`
`counsel?
`
` MR. HASFORD: You can answer yes or no.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Page 25
`
`Petitioner's Notice of Cross-examination of John C.
`
`Page 23
`
`Jarosz. Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
`
` A. I don't think I've seen it before, but --
`
`so I guess in that regard, I don't recognize it.
`
` MS. SUZUKI: Counsel, can we stipulate
`
`that Mr. Jarosz is here pursuant to this notice of
`
`cross-examination?
`
` MR. HASFORD: So stipulated.
`
` MS. SUZUKI: Counsel, can we stipulate
`
`that the questions I ask today, unless otherwise
`
`stated, apply equally to IPR 2015-01097, IPR
`
`2015-01099, IPR 2015-01100 and IPR 2015-01105.
`
` MR. HASFORD: So stipulated.
`
` MS. SUZUKI: You can put that document
`
`aside, Mr. Jarosz.
`
`BY MS. SUZUKI:
`
` Q. Mr. Jarosz, have you served as an expert
`
`for a matter for counsel from Finnegan previously?
`
` MR. HASFORD: You can answer that
`
`question yes or no.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`BY MS. SUZUKI:
`
` Q. On how many occasions have you worked
`
`with Mr. Hasford in your expert role in cases where
`
`Finnegan has been counsel?
`
` A. I don't know the precise number, but my
`
`best guess is that it's something on the order of
`
`half a dozen. I could be wrong.
`
` Q. Have you worked with Ms. Lebeis
`
`previously in your role as an expert for cases -- in
`
`cases where Finnegan was counsel?
`
` A. Not other than this set of cases having
`
`generally to do with Prolensa.
`
` Q. And your work with Mr. Hasford, was that
`
`approximately a half dozen cases in addition to the
`
`actions and IPRs concerning Prolensa?
`
` A. Yes. Though I could be wrong.
`
` Q. Have you served as an expert in any
`
`matter for Senju previously?
`
` A. Not other than in this set of matters
`
`having to do with Prolensa, as I recall.
`
` Q. Have you served as an expert for any
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`matter with Bausch & Lomb previously?
`
` A. It's possible that I did many years ago,
`
`but I only have a vague memory of that.
`
` Q. Did that case concern 6 ophthalmic drug
`
`formulations?
`
` A. Not the one that I'm remembering right
`
`now, but my memory is a little bit vague.
`
` Q. Do you recall --
`
` A. With regard to Bausch & Lomb.
`
` Q. I'm sorry. Did you have a chance to
`
`finish your answer?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you recall if your previous case for
`
`Bausch & Lomb concerned pharmaceutical products?
`
` A. I don't think it did, and that's what
`
`makes me hesitate a little bit. Because I think of
`
`them as an eye care company. My memory tells me I
`
`worked on something with them a long time ago that
`
`didn't have to do with eye care, and so it makes me
`
`hesitate.
`
` Q. Have you served as an expert in any
`
`matter for Valiant?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`your own personal work has been devoted to the
`
`Prolensa related IPRs and District Court cases?
`
` A. I don't know the answer to that. I would
`
`just be estimating, but my best estimate is that
`
`it's less than 5 percent of my work. I can't be any
`
`more precise than that.
`
` Q. How about Mr. Nolan's work? What
`
`percentage of his work in the last two years has
`
`been directed to the Prolensa related IPRs and
`
`District Court case?
`
` A. I think it's probably higher than my
`
`percentage. I'm reasonably sure that it is, but I
`
`can't be much more precise than that. I'm sorry.
`
` Q. And for Ms. Belacova, what percentage of
`
`her work in the last two years has been directed to
`
`the Prolensa related IPRs and District Court case?
`
` A. I think it's probably somewhere in
`
`between my percentage and Mr. Nolan's percentage,
`
`but I'm sorry. I can't be any more precise than
`
`that.
`
` Q. Have you served as an expert in an IPR
`
`concerning pharmaceutical patents previously?
`
`Page 29
`
`Page 27
`
` A. I don't think so. Although I've been
`
`involved in lots over the years. I'd have to go
`
`back and check my records, but I don't think I have.
`
` Q. To date, do you know how much Analysis
`
`Group has invoiced Finnegan in relation to Analysis
`
`Group's work on this IPR?
`
` A. I don't think I know that.
`
` Q. Do you know to date how much Analysis
`
`Group has invoiced Finnegan for in relation to
`
`Analysis Group's work on the various IPRs and the
`
`District Court case regarding Prolensa?
`
` A. As a factual matter, I'm not sure our
`
`retention is with Finnegan. It might be. So I'm
`
`not quite sure that we've invoiced Finnegan but we
`
`have sent invoices to Finnegan that perhaps Senju or
`
`someone else is responsible for. I just don't
`
`recall. Having said that, collectively, we've
`
`billed in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but
`
`I can't be any more specific than that. In other
`
`words, I'm reasonably sure it's over $100,000, but
`
`I'm not certain how much over.
`
` Q. In the last two years, what percentage of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes. Although I'm not quite sure what
`
`you mean by a pharmaceutical patent, but I'm
`
`assuming you're meaning a patent that can be used in
`
`a pharmaceutical product.
`
` Q. So you have served as an expert in an IPR
`
`concerning patents that can be used in a
`
`pharmaceutical product previously?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. On how many occasions have you served as
`
`an expert in an IPR concerning a patent that can be
`
`used in a pharmaceutical product?
`
` A. Sitting here right now, I clearly
`
`remember one, and there might be another one. I'd
`
`have to go back and check my files. And I assume
`
`you're saying other than the pending matters, other
`
`than the Prolensa matters.
`
` Q. Yes. So other than the Prolensa matters,
`
`you recall one and maybe one other IPR in which you
`
`have served as an expert on a pharmaceutical patent
`
`concerning IPR?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Object to the form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think that's right, and
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`John C. Jarosz
`
`March 16, 2016
`
`Washington, DC
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I'm also assuming when you're using the term serve
`
`as an expert that I've gotten to the point of
`
`submitting a declaration or report. I've worked on
`
`other matters that are IPRs and in pharmaceutical
`
`settings, but I think only one and possibly two
`
`others have gotten to the point of a filed report,
`
`besides the Prolensa matters.
`
`BY MS. SUZUKI:
`
` Q. And those previous IPRs that you've
`
`worked on in a pharmaceutical setting where it did
`
`not get to the point of submitting a declaration,
`
`did the parties settle?
`
` A. No. The ones that I'm thinking of right
`
`now are pending matters. It's possible some have
`
`settled. I'm not remembering that right now, but
`
`it's possible but I am involved in several
`
`pharmaceutical IPR matters that are pending matters.
`
` Q. How many pending IPR matters in a
`
`pharmaceutical setting are you working on right now?
`
` A. Besides the Prolensa matters? I'd have
`
`to go back and check. It might be two or three.
`
` Q. In the two to three matters that you just
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`matters, the previous matter you discussed and the
`
`current matters that you have, have you ever served
`
`as an expert on behalf of the Petitioner?
`
` A. I don't recall that being the case. I
`
`have been approached by several Petitioners in IPR
`
`matters, but I don't think we accepted the retention
`
`in any of those matters.
`
` Q. And by we in your last answer, were you
`
`referring to Analysis Group?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Does Analysis Group ever accept retention
`
`by Petitioners in IPRs in the pharmaceutical
`
`setting?
`
` A. It's possible. I'd have to go back and
`
`look at our corporate records.
`
` Q. Have you ever served as an expert in a
`
`District Court litigation related to pharmaceutical
`
`patents previously?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. On how many occasions have you served as
`
`an expert in a District Court litigation related to
`
`pharmaceutical patents?
`
`Page 33
`
`Page 31
`
`mentioned, that you are working on currently that
`
`are IPRs in the pharmaceutical setting, do you know
`
`what party you are working for?
`
` A. I'd have to go back and check my files.
`
`I just haven't committed those to memory.
`
` Q. And you mentioned that you recall at
`
`least one occasion where you previously served as an
`
`IPR -- strike that.
`
` You mentioned that you recall that
`
`previously you served as an expert in an IPR in a
`
`pharmaceutical setting. Do you recall what party
`
`you were working for on that matter?
`
` A. I recall that it was the patent owner,
`
`but I -- as I sit here right now, I'm not
`
`remembering the name of the party.
`
` Q. In the two to three IPRs in a
`
`pharmaceutical setting that you are working on
`
`currently, are you working on behalf of the patent
`
`owner?
`
` A. As I recall, yes.
`
` Q. In your work on IPRs in the
`
`pharmaceutical setting as a whole, the Prolensa
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Many times over the years. My best guess
`
`is it's something on the order of 50. I might be
`
`wrong on that.
`
` Q. Have you ever testified at trial in those
`
`District Court litigations related to pharmaceutical
`
`patents where you served as an expert?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. On how many occasions have you testified
`
`a