throbber
221
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`patent
`
`column 7 where we were at before.
`
`MS. LEBEIS
`
`I
`
`think youre looking
`
`at
`
`the 984.
`
`Q
`
`Yes Ill
`
`get
`
`there in a minute.
`
`You
`
`can have that one open.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Which exhibit number
`
`Its the one that you have open in
`
`front of you I believe.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`This one okay.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q
`
`it.
`
`So if
`
`you look at
`
`the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A
`
`560 got
`560 yes.
`560 patent
`
`--15A
`
`Yes.
`
`Q
`
`-- as we
`
`just discussed in the 560
`
`patent we see a report of a formulation of
`
`diclofenac
`
`BAC and octoxynol
`
`forming no
`
`precipitate after storage right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`After 41 days at
`
`4 degrees.
`
`Right.
`
`In that particular
`
`formulation
`
`theres no precipitate it says.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 221
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q
`
`222
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`Then if we look back at EP 984 page
`9 likewise there was a --
`
`theres a report
`
`in
`
`this patent of a clear solution with no
`
`precipitate of ketorolac
`
`benzalkonium
`
`chloride and octoxynol
`
`40 after storage at
`
`various conditions right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the document.
`
`Objection to the form of
`
`the question.
`
`A
`
`Well
`
`theyre two different
`
`formulations for two different drugs.
`
`Q
`
`Right.
`
`So in each of
`
`these patents
`
`we see a formulation of an NSAID benzalkonium
`
`chloride and octoxynol
`
`40 showing no
`
`precipitate after storage at
`
`4 degrees right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the form of
`
`the question.
`
`A
`
`We havent
`
`seen any evidence of
`
`anything ever
`
`forming a precipitate of
`
`benzalkonium chloride and an NSAID.
`Im not asking about
`
`Q
`
`a precipitate of
`
`benzalkonium chloride and an NSAID.
`think my
`Im just
`
`question was simpler than that.
`
`I
`
`asking in each of
`
`these patents the 560
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 222
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`223
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`patent and the 984 patent
`
`we see a
`
`formulation of an NSAID benzalkonium chloride
`
`and octoxynol
`
`40 showing no precipitate after
`
`storage at
`
`4 degrees right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the form of
`
`the question.
`
`And objection
`
`mischaracterizes the documents.
`
`A
`
`4 degrees
`
`isnt one of
`
`the
`
`temperatures of --
`
`in example 5 of
`
`the 984.
`
`Q
`
`Let me change the question then.
`in each of EP 984 and the 560 patent
`
`So
`
`we have
`
`formulations of an NSAID benzalkonium
`
`chloride and octoxynol
`
`40 showing no formation
`
`of
`
`a precipitate after storage at all
`
`the
`
`conditions tested in each of
`
`these patents
`
`right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the form of
`
`the question and to the extent
`
`it
`
`mischaracterizes
`
`the documents.
`
`A
`
`I dont
`
`think you can
`
`take an
`
`experiment out of one patent under one set of
`
`conditions and compare it
`
`to an experiment
`
`in
`
`-- under
`
`a different
`
`set of conditions in
`
`another patent but
`
`a different drug.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 223
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`224
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`Q
`
`I wasnt asking you to do any
`
`comparison here.
`
`I was
`
`just asking you whether
`
`or not you agree that
`
`in each of
`
`the 560 and
`
`EP 984 patents we have a formulation of an
`
`NSAID benzalkonium chloride and octoxynol
`
`40
`
`showing no formation of a precipitate after
`
`storage at each of
`
`the conditions tested in
`
`those patents.
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the form of
`
`the question and to the extent
`
`it
`
`mischaracterizes the documents
`
`and asked
`
`and answered.
`
`A
`
`I dont
`
`think you can make a
`
`comparison.
`
`There were conditions where you
`
`have a clear solution in the 984 patent
`
`and
`
`theres --
`
`for a completely different
`
`experiment with different actives.
`
`Theres
`
`apparently no precipitate in the 560.
`
`Q
`
`When you say that
`
`these are
`
`completely different experiments can
`
`you
`
`explain what
`
`you mean by that
`
`A
`
`Well
`
`the temperature raisings are
`
`not
`
`the same.
`
`The active ingredient
`
`is not
`
`the
`
`same.
`
`I havent
`
`looked at
`
`the -- all
`
`the
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 224
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`225
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`ingredients so I have to look at
`
`the
`
`ingredients.
`
`Document
`
`review.
`
`The ingredients in the 984 seem to
`
`include sodium EDTA which doesnt appear
`
`to be
`
`in the comparative example C in the 560.
`
`Sodium chloride appears
`
`to be in the 984 and
`
`not
`
`in the comparative example C in the 560 so
`
`theyre not comparable conditions.
`
`Q
`
`Are you -- are you assuming that
`
`the
`
`ingredients listed in example 4 are the ones
`
`that are in the formulations tested in example
`5
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`Im looking at all of
`page 8 and all
`
`A
`
`the examples on
`
`the -- and 7 and 6 all contain
`
`those ingredients.
`
`Q
`
`So youre making the assumption that
`
`those ingredients are in the formulations
`tested in example 5
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`Asked
`
`and answered.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 225
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`226
`
`Well example 5 says the --
`A
`984 it says The formulations of
`invention have proven to be stable and that
`
`in the
`
`the present
`
`is the data for that.
`
`And every formulation
`thats in that 984 has those ingredients.
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`So youre assuming again that
`
`the ingredients in the formulations tested in
`
`example 5 are the same as the ingredients
`7 and 8
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`listed in the other examples on pages
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony and
`
`mischaracterizes
`
`the document.
`
`Asked and
`
`answered.
`Im reading the document
`
`A
`
`for what
`
`it
`
`is and it
`
`seems to me to state that
`
`theyre
`
`testing the formulations that are in the
`
`invention all of which contain those
`
`ingredients.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`--22the experiment
`
`Q
`
`In your view the experiments in the
`
`560 patent and in the experiments in the
`
`in the EP 984 patent arent
`
`comparable
`
`at
`
`least
`
`in part because
`
`the active
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ingredients are different
`
`is that right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 226
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`227
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`A
`
`They have different active
`
`ingredients and they have many other things
`
`that are different as well.
`
`Q
`
`So in your view you cant
`
`learn
`
`anything about one from the other
`
`is that
`
`right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`Asked
`
`and answered.
`
`A
`
`I dont
`
`think you can make a
`
`comparison between
`
`them.
`
`Q
`
`Is there anything you can learn from
`
`one of
`
`these examples that would be relevant
`
`to
`
`the other
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony. Calls
`
`for speculation.
`
`Asked and answered.
`
`A
`
`So many things. More than one thing
`
`has changed.
`So you cant make a direct comparison
`
`In fact several
`
`things have
`
`changed.
`
`between the two.
`
`Q
`
`Are you familiar with the textbook
`
`Remington
`
`The Science and Practice of
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 227
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`228
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`Pharmacy
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I
`
`know of
`
`it
`
`yes.
`
`Its a well-known reference in the
`
`field of pharmaceutical
`
`formulation
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`It
`
`is a textbook in that
`
`field yes.
`
`Its a recognized authority in
`
`pharmaceutical
`
`science right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`Asked and answered.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Its a textbook within that
`
`field.
`
`You dont
`
`think its a recognized
`
`authority
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`Asked
`
`and answered.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Its a textbook within that
`
`field.
`
`But you disagree that
`
`its a
`
`recognized authority in pharmaceutical
`
`science
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`Asked
`
`and answered.
`
`A
`
`Its one of several
`
`textbooks
`
`that
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 228
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`229
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`are in the field.
`
`Q
`
`Its a leading pharmaceutical
`
`textbook
`
`right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`Asked
`
`and answered.
`
`A
`
`Its one of several
`
`textbooks in the
`
`field.
`
`MS. RAPALINO
`
`Im going to ask the
`
`court reporter
`
`to mark as Davies Exhibit
`
`10
`
`an excerpt
`
`from the 20th edition of
`
`Remington
`
`The Science and Practice of
`
`Pharmacy.
`
`Exhibit 10 was marked for
`
`identification and attached to the deposition
`
`transcript.
`
`BY MS. RAPALINO
`
`Q
`
`You would agree that
`
`a person of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art would be familiar
`
`with the Remingtons
`
`textbook right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I expect
`
`they would have heard of
`
`it.
`
`And it would be a textbook theyd
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 229
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`230
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`consult
`
`in the course of doing their work in
`
`pharmacy
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`They may or may not.
`
`If
`
`you turn to page 831 and the
`
`excerpt
`
`from Remingtons
`
`in Exhibit 10.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`You see theres a section entitled
`
`Quaternary Ammonium Compounds
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I see that.
`
`And Remington states that
`
`Benzalkonium chloride is a typical quaternary
`
`ammonium compound and is by far the most common
`
`preservative used in ophthalmic preparations.
`Do you see that
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Thats what
`
`it
`
`says.
`
`You dont disagree that BAC is by far
`
`the most common preservative used in ophthalmic
`
`preparations
`
`do you
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I havent
`
`done the analysis.
`
`So you dont have a basis to disagree
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 230
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`with Remingtons
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`Asked and answered.
`
`231
`
`A
`
`It doesnt give me anything to go by
`done the analysis so I dont
`
`and I havent
`
`know whether
`
`its correct or not.
`
`Q
`
`And Remingtons also states that
`
`Over
`
`65 percent of commercial ophthalmic
`
`products are preserved with benzalkonium
`
`chloride.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Do you see that
`Thats what
`
`it says.
`
`And then Remingtons
`
`goes on to say
`
`that Despite this broad use the compound
`
`has
`
`definite limitations.
`
`Do you see that
`Thats what
`
`it says.
`
`Could you read the next sentence in
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Remingtons.
`As a cationic surface active
`
`A
`
`material of high molecular weight
`
`it
`
`is not
`
`compatible with anionic compounds.
`
`Q
`
`So how would a person of skill
`
`in the
`
`art understand that sentence
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 231
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`232
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`its saying that
`
`theres
`
`Well
`
`A
`
`supposed to be supposedly an incompatibility
`
`between
`
`the benzalkonium and anionic compounds.
`
`But again theres no evidence being put
`
`forward to that effect.
`
`The examples that are
`
`given are with salicylates and nitrates but
`
`again no reference.
`
`Q
`
`In your opinion would a person of
`
`skill
`
`in the art
`
`ignore this explicit guidance
`
`from Remingtons
`
`regarding incompatibility of
`
`benzalkonium chloride and anionic compounds
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection.
`
`Mischaracterizes the document.
`
`Argumentative.
`
`A
`
`Well without encountering a problem
`
`they wouldnt be looking at
`
`this.
`
`So you do an
`
`experiment and if
`
`you see a problem maybe you
`
`would go out and look for some explanation.
`
`But
`
`I havent
`
`seen any evidence
`
`that
`
`there is a
`
`problem.
`
`Q
`
`If
`
`a person of skill
`
`in the art
`
`formulating an NSAID reviewed this section of
`
`Remingtons
`
`is it your opinion that
`
`they would
`
`ignore this guidance
`
`regarding the
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 232
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`233
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`incompatibility of anionic compounds with
`
`benzalkonium chloride
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony
`
`mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`They would do the experiment
`
`to see
`
`what happened.
`
`Q
`
`They would have to check
`
`to see
`
`whether
`
`there was an incompatibility right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`Argumentative.
`
`A
`
`They would do the experiment
`
`and all
`
`the experiments that have been done so far that
`
`I have seen dont
`
`show a problem of
`
`the
`
`benzalkonium ammonium and the NSAID.
`Im going to ask the
`
`MS. RAPALINO
`
`court
`
`reporter
`
`to mark as Davies Exhibit
`
`11
`
`an excerpt
`
`from the declaration of Shirou
`
`Sawa submitted in IPR 2015-902 and IPR
`
`2015-903.
`
`Exhibit 11 was marked for
`
`identification and attached to the deposition
`
`transcript.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 233
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`MS. RAPALINO
`
`For
`
`the record thats
`
`Exhibit
`
`-- Senju Exhibit 2098
`
`in those
`
`234
`
`IPRs.
`
`BY MS. RAPALINO
`
`Q
`
`Dr. Davies you participated as an
`
`expert
`
`in inter partes review proceedings
`
`for
`
`some of
`
`the patents-in-suit right
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Can you repeat
`
`the question.
`
`Youve participated as an expert
`
`in
`
`inter partes review proceedings for some of
`
`the
`
`patents-in-suit
`
`in this case right
`
`A
`
`I said early on today that
`
`I didnt
`
`know what
`
`that meant.
`
`So Ive participated in
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`18
`
`--17A
`
`patent office proceedings.
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`So you participated in
`
`Ive never heard them called what you
`
`-- what youve just said.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q
`
`Understood.
`
`Let me use that
`
`terminology.
`
`So youve participated in patent
`
`office proceedings regarding the
`
`patents-in-suit
`
`in this case right
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I have yes.
`
`You submitted one or more
`
`declarations
`
`in those patent office
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 234
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`235
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`proceedings
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes I have yes.
`
`Have you reviewed a declaration
`
`submitted by one of
`
`the inventors in -- one of
`
`the inventors of
`
`the patents-in-suit Mr. Sawa
`
`A
`
`Ive reviewed this one before yes.
`
`So I may have misspoken earlier then because
`
`I
`
`didnt understand what
`
`IPR was when I said I
`
`hadnt
`
`read anything in the I
`
`-- well as far
`
`as I knew I hadnt but now you explained it.
`
`I have seen this one.
`
`Q
`
`Understood.
`
`We wont hold that
`
`against you.
`
`I
`
`know we use some complicated
`
`acronyms to talk about
`
`those patent office
`
`proceedings.
`
`Okay.
`
`So if
`
`you look at page 2 of
`
`this translation of Davies Exhibit
`
`10 -- do we
`
`have 10
`
`MS. LEBEIS
`11 Im sorry.
`
`I
`
`Q
`
`think its 11.
`
`11.
`
`You understand that Mr. Sawa who
`
`submitted this declaration is the first
`
`named
`
`inventor
`
`on one or more of
`
`the patents-in-suit
`
`A
`
`Yes.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 235
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`236
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`you turn to page 3 you see that
`in paragraph 7 he attests that he
`
`If
`
`Q
`
`he --
`
`prepared and tested the stability of bromfenac
`
`sodium formulations and he references Appendix
`
`A for that
`
`testing.
`
`Do you see that
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection.
`
`Mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`Well
`
`he says the specific
`
`formulation is disclosed in table 1 of
`
`the 431
`
`and 290 patents.
`
`Q
`
`Right.
`
`And then he goes on to
`
`reference Appendix A in the next sentence.
`
`Do
`
`you see that
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection.
`
`Mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`Well
`
`theres a lot of other words in
`
`between
`
`there about what actually they looked
`
`at but
`
`Q
`
`it does say Appendix A.
`you look at paragraph 8 the
`
`Then
`
`if
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`--22A
`
`following paragraph
`
`Yes.
`
`Q
`
`-- he says As reflected in the
`
`24
`
`25
`
`laboratory notebook of Appendix A.
`
`the
`
`stability of
`
`these bromfenac
`
`sodium
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 236
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`7
`
`--6A
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`formulations was tested after adjusting the pH
`
`of
`
`the formulations to 7.
`
`237
`
`Do you see that
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection
`
`I see that.
`
`MS. LEBEIS
`
`-- mischaracterizes the
`
`document.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`Q
`
`So do you understand that hes
`
`characterized Appendix A as a laboratory
`
`notebook
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection.
`
`Mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`Well
`
`its not a laboratory notebook.
`
`It might be a translation of a laboratory
`
`notebook.
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`So Appendix A is a translation
`
`of a laboratory notebook.
`
`A
`
`I dont
`
`know that.
`
`Thats what
`
`this
`
`says.
`
`Q
`
`So you think that Mr. Sawa is
`
`mistaken here in his declaration
`
`A
`
`No I
`
`Mischaracterizes --
`
`to the extent
`
`it
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`--24MS. LEBEIS Objection.
`
`Page 237
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`238
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`mischaracterizes prior testimony
`
`argumentative.
`
`A
`
`I
`
`think youre asking me do I know
`
`its a translation of a laboratory notebook.
`
`I
`
`dont
`
`know other than what Mr. Sawa says.
`
`No to be clear my question was do
`Q
`you see that hes characterized Appendix A as a
`
`laboratory notebook
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`He is suggesting that Appendix A is a
`
`laboratory notebook
`yes.
`So lets look at Appendix A which
`
`Q
`
`starts at page 28 of
`
`this excerpt.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Sorry page
`
`28.
`
`28 okay.
`
`And if we look -- and you see that
`
`page 28 is the beginning of Appendix A. right
`
`A
`
`Yes.
`
`Then
`
`if
`
`you look at page 30
`
`in
`
`Okay.
`
`25
`
`Q
`
`-- you see that
`
`the top of
`
`the page
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Q
`
`Appendix A
`
`--24A
`
`Page 238
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`239
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`-- well
`
`first of all
`
`the page is dated
`
`February of 2000 right
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`February of 2000 yes.
`
`And there is a name of
`
`the test here.
`
`the formulation of Bronuck
`
`It says Study of
`ophthalmic solution at pH 7.
`Do you see that
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`Do you understand that Bronuck is a
`
`formulation of bromfenac sodium
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`And you see that
`
`the study director
`
`listed here on this page is Shirou Sawa right
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Thats correct.
`
`Thats the inventor
`
`on the
`
`patents-in-suit right
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`And you see that
`
`in the paragraph in
`
`the middle of
`
`the page that start with the word
`
`20
`
`21
`
`--22A
`
`Purpose
`
`Yes.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q
`
`-- he writes five lines from the
`
`bottom of
`
`that paragraph Although the
`
`addition of counterions to control
`
`the acetic
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 239
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`240
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`acid group has been considered bromfenac
`
`sodium forms insoluble complexes due to the
`
`addition of quaternary ammonium salt and
`
`becomes cloudy.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I see that.
`
`So do you understand that Mr. Sawa
`
`the inventor understood that bromfenac
`
`sodium
`
`forms insoluble complexes with the addition of
`
`a quaternary ammonium salt
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`A
`
`I dont agree with that.
`
`So thats
`
`not what
`
`he says.
`
`Q
`
`How do you understand what Mr. Sawa
`
`is saying in this declaration
`
`A
`
`Well
`
`first of all
`
`this is a
`
`laboratory notebook apparently of one of
`
`the
`
`inventors which I dont
`
`think is normally
`
`regarded as part of
`
`the common general
`
`knowledge.
`
`And what
`
`this actually says is that
`
`a precipitate --
`
`the solution becomes cloudy
`
`due to the addition of a quaternary ammonium
`
`salt does not mean that
`
`the quaternary ammonium
`
`salt
`
`is part of
`
`the precipitate.
`
`So unless
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 240
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`241
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`Mr. Sawa Dr. Sawa actually analyzed the
`
`precipitate theres no way of knowing that
`
`its -- contains
`
`the quaternary ammonium salt.
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`So you understand Mr. Sawa
`
`just to be saying that
`
`in a formulation
`
`containing bromfenac sodium the addition of
`
`the quaternary ammonium salt -- after addition
`
`of
`
`the quaternary ammonium salt
`complexes were formed but he didnt know what
`
`insoluble
`
`those complexes were.
`
`Is that what
`
`-- how you
`
`understand that
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`A
`
`He doesnt
`
`know that.
`
`He doesnt
`
`know what
`
`they are and he doesnt
`
`know that
`
`they contain the quaternary ammonium salt.
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`But you would agree that
`
`Mr. Sawa does know that when you formulate
`
`bromfenac
`
`sodium and benzalkonium chloride in a
`
`formulation the formulation becomes cloudy
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony and to
`
`the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the
`
`document.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 I www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 241
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`242
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`A
`
`I can only repeat what
`
`Ive said.
`
`There is no evidence
`
`that any cloudiness
`
`involves the interaction of
`
`the benzyl ammonium
`
`cation with anything.
`
`Q
`
`Right.
`
`But
`
`there is evidence
`
`from
`
`this declaration of cloudiness
`
`in a bromfenac
`
`formulation that contains benzalkonium
`
`chloride right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes
`
`the document.
`
`A
`
`Well actually theres no evidence
`
`that bromfenac
`
`is involved in the cloudiness
`
`either.
`
`There is evidence
`
`that
`
`the solution
`
`goes -- his observation is the solution goes
`
`cloudy but he provides no evidence that
`
`bromfenac has anything to do with the
`
`cloudiness or that
`
`the benzyl ammonium has
`
`anything to do with the cloudiness.
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`So he has a formulation that
`
`contains bromfenac and benzalkonium chloride
`
`and sees that
`
`it goes cloudy
`
`right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`He has a formulation that contains
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 242
`
`

`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`243
`
`those two and sees
`
`it
`
`if
`
`go cloudy yes.
`
`you turn the page to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`page 33--5A
`
`In fact
`
`Okay.
`
`Q
`
`Q
`
`--
`
`there is a table there that
`
`reports the results of his observations of
`
`these formulations right
`
`Do you see that
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`I dont
`
`know how do I know thats
`
`related to that experiment.
`
`Document
`review.
`Im trying to see how I know whatever
`
`the analysis is on page 33 has to do with the
`
`experiment.
`
`Q
`
`So you dont
`
`think that whats on
`
`page 33 has to do with the bromfenac
`
`formulation
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony and to
`
`the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the
`
`document.
`
`A
`
`Okay.
`
`It would appear
`
`to be from
`
`that experiment.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 243
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`244
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`Q
`
`And you see that
`
`in the chart on
`
`page 33 there are columns labeled Turbidity
`and Foreign Insoluble Matter
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`Those columns --
`
`the results in those
`
`columns suggest
`
`that
`
`the formulations of
`
`bromfenac
`
`--
`
`the formulations containing
`
`bromfenac
`
`and benzalkonium chloride show
`
`turbidity and show the presence of
`
`foreign
`
`insoluble matter right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes
`
`the document.
`
`A
`
`What
`
`I recall
`
`is that
`
`theyre labeled
`
`Turbidity and Foreign Insoluble Matter
`
`yes with plus and minuses.
`
`Q
`
`Right.
`
`So in nearly every one of
`
`those formulations there was
`
`--
`
`in nearly
`
`every one of
`
`the results reported in that
`
`table
`
`there was the presence of turbidity and the
`
`presence of
`
`foreign insoluble matter right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes the document.
`
`A
`
`Well with a little data available to
`
`go on that would appear
`
`to be the case.
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 244
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`245
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`Theres also quite a lot of color change
`
`I
`
`see.
`
`Q
`
`Lets go back
`
`to Davies Exhibit 1.
`
`Thats your expert report.
`
`And if
`
`you would
`
`turn please to paragraph 26.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`You say in the first
`
`sentence of
`
`paragraph 26 that The sodium salt of bromfenac
`
`is freely water soluble right
`
`Do you see
`
`that
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I see that.
`
`And you conclude
`
`that -- at
`
`the end
`
`of
`
`that sentence that Thus any solubilizing
`
`effect of polysorbate 80 or tyloxapol would not
`
`be required to dissolve or solubilize bromfenac
`
`sodium right
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Thats what
`
`I say yes.
`
`You would agree that
`
`the solubility
`
`of
`
`the salt depends
`
`on the nature of both the
`
`anion and the cation right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection.
`
`Incomplete
`
`hypothetical.
`
`A
`
`If
`
`you take a particular salt of a
`
`particular anion and cation then the
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 245
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`246
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`solubility overall would depend on some balance
`
`between
`
`the two.
`
`Q
`
`So the solubility for example of
`
`bromfenac
`
`sodium would be different
`
`from the
`
`solubility of a salt of bromfenac
`
`and
`
`benzalkonium ion right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection incomplete
`
`hypothetical.
`
`A
`
`Without experimentation I cant
`
`answer
`
`that.
`
`Q
`
`So you dont
`
`know whether
`
`the
`
`solubilities would be the same or different
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`Incomplete hypothetical.
`
`A
`
`Well what
`
`I know is that sodium
`
`bromfenac
`
`is freely water soluble.
`
`So both the
`
`anion and the cation of
`
`that are likely to be
`
`highly solvated and thats what makes the salt
`
`soluble freely solid.
`
`I dont
`
`know about
`
`--
`
`I
`
`know that benzyl ammonium salts are soluble in
`
`water but
`
`I dont
`
`know to what extent relative
`
`to sodium.
`
`Q
`
`Benzalkonium ion is more hydrophobic
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 246
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`247
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`than sodium right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection incomplete
`
`hypothetical. Calls for speculation.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Its more hydrophobic yes.
`
`And benzalkonium has alkyl chains in
`
`its structure right
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`right
`
`It does yes.
`
`And alkyl chains are hydrophobic
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection incomplete
`
`hypothetical.
`
`A
`
`They are and the plus charge is
`
`hydrophilic.
`
`Q
`
`These formulations -- strike that.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`19
`
`--18Davies Exhibit 12.
`
`Why dont we
`
`look at U.S. Patent
`
`4910225 which we will mark as Exhibit
`
`Exhibit
`
`12 was marked for
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`identification and attached to the deposition
`
`transcript.
`
`BY MS. RAPALINO
`
`Q
`
`This is a patent
`
`you reviewed in
`
`connection with rendering your opinions in this
`
`case right
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 247
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`248
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`It
`
`is yes.
`
`You understand that experimental
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`example 6 at column 8 of
`
`this 225 patent at
`
`Exhibit
`
`12 contains
`
`the same ingredients as the
`
`Bronuck bromfenac
`
`sodium product
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`A
`
`I havent actually compared them so I
`
`dont
`
`know that.
`
`Q
`
`Actually I
`
`think I misspoke.
`
`Its
`
`example 6 at column 10 of
`
`the 225 patent
`
`that
`
`has the same ingredients as the Bronuck
`
`product.
`
`that
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Have
`
`you had a chance to look at
`
`No.
`
`You would agree that
`
`the Bronuck
`
`bromfenac product contained polysorbate 80 as
`
`one of
`
`its components
`
`right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`Asked and answered.
`
`A
`
`I havent
`
`reviewed in detail
`
`the
`
`ingredients of
`
`the bromfenac patent.
`
`So what
`
`were you asking me to compare
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 248
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`249
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`Q
`
`Oh I was asking about
`
`the Bronuck
`
`formulation.
`
`A
`
`Bronuck.
`
`I havent
`
`reviewed in
`
`detail.
`
`Q
`
`Youre familiar with the Bronuck
`
`product
`
`that
`
`there was a Bronuck product
`
`on
`
`the market
`
`in Japan as of 2003
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection no
`
`foundation.
`
`I know that
`
`--
`
`I dont
`
`know the date
`
`know that Bronuck contains bromfenac.
`
`And that was a commercial product
`
`in
`
`but
`
`A
`
`I
`
`Q
`
`Japan
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection no
`
`foundation.
`
`Asked and answered.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I dont
`
`know that.
`
`Lets look at example 6 of
`
`the 225
`
`patent.
`
`This is at column 10.
`
`Are you there
`
`A
`
`Yes.
`
`You see that
`
`Q
`contains polysorbate 80
`
`that
`
`formulation
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`It does yes.
`
`Whats the -- what
`
`is polysorbate 80
`
`Its a --
`
`I drew a picture of
`
`it
`
`in
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 249
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`250
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`my review.
`
`Its a polyethoxylated derivative
`
`of sorbic acid.
`
`Q
`
`Its used as a surfactant right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection incomplete
`
`hypothetical.
`
`A
`
`You have to look at
`
`the particular
`
`case where its employed as to whether
`
`its
`
`been a surfactant or not.
`
`Q
`
`Have you seen polysorbate 80 used in
`
`pharmaceutical
`
`formulations for some other
`
`purpose
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation.
`
`No foundation.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I havent
`
`done that analysis.
`
`But youre aware that polysorbate 80
`
`is used in a surfactant
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`No
`
`foundation.
`
`A
`
`In some instances
`
`it
`
`has been yes.
`
`But
`
`in this particular patent
`
`I dont recall
`
`any -- any comment
`
`as to why they put
`
`polysorbate 80 into these formulations.
`
`Q
`
`And in your view a person of skill
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055
`1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 250
`
`

`
`251
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`in the art wouldnt
`
`know what
`
`the function was
`
`of polysorbate 80 in these formulations is
`
`that right
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`I would expect
`
`to be informed
`
`informed.
`
`So I dont
`
`know why they
`
`Well
`A
`Im not
`
`it
`
`in there.
`
`but
`
`put
`
`Q
`
`So a person of skill
`
`in the art
`
`wouldnt
`
`know what polysorbate 80 was doing in
`
`the formulation
`
`A
`
`Well
`
`since they dont
`
`tell you you
`
`cant
`
`tell why they put
`
`it
`
`in there.
`
`Q
`
`A person of skill
`
`in the art couldnt
`
`look at
`
`the literature that was available as of
`
`the time of
`
`the patent
`
`to determine the
`
`function of an excipient
`
`like polysorbate 80
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection. Calls for
`
`speculation to the extent
`
`it
`
`mischaracterizes prior testimony asked and
`
`answered.
`
`A
`
`The author of
`
`the patents doesnt
`
`--24dont
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`tell
`
`you why they put
`in there so you cant be sure.
`
`the polysorbate 80
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`Page 251
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`STEPHEN G. DAVIES D.PHIL.
`
`Q
`
`So you dont
`
`know why it was put
`
`in
`
`252
`
`there
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`I dont
`
`know why no.
`
`So in your view a person of skill
`
`in the art would have known that bromfenac
`
`sodium was relatively water soluble
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
`
`A
`
`Would you like to repeat
`
`the
`
`question.
`
`MS. RAPALINO
`
`Could you read that
`
`back please.
`
`BY MS. RAPALINO
`
`Q
`
`But
`
`in your view a person of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have known
`
`that
`
`bromfenac
`
`sodium was relatively water soluble
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection to the extent
`
`The Little Reporting Company
`646 650-5055 1 www.littlereporting.com
`
`--19MS. LEBEIS
`
`Record read.
`
`MS. LEBEIS Objection

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