throbber
Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 165 PageiD #: 6187
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ALLERGAN,
`
`INC.
`
`vs .
`
`SANDOZ,
`
`INC .
`
`* Civil Docket No .
`2 : 09-CV-97
`*
`* Marshall, Texas
`*
`*
`*
`
`August 3, 2011
`1:15 P.M.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF BENCH TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE T. JOHN WARD
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9 APPEARANCES :
`
`10 FOR THE PLAINTIFF :
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`MS. JUANITA BROOKS
`MR . ROGER DENNING
`Fish & Richardson
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego , CA
`92130
`
`MR . JONATHAN SINGER
`MS . DEANNA REICHEL
`Fish & Richardson
`60 South Sixth Street
`3200 RBC Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN
`
`55402
`
`MR . W. CHAD SHEAR
`Fish & Richardson
`1717 Main Street
`Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX
`
`75201
`
`20 APPEARANCES CONT INUED ON NEXT PAGE:
`
`21
`
`22 COURT REPORTERS :
`
`MS. SUSAN SIMMONS, CSR
`MS. SHELLY HOLMES, CSR
`Official Court Reporters
`100 East Houston, Suite 125
`Marshall, TX
`75670
`903/935 - 3868
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced on CAT system.)
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 1 of 166
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2136
`LUPIN v. SENJU
`IPR2015-01105
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 2 of 165 PageiD #: 6188
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`(Sandoz, et al)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`(Apotex)
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MS. SUSAN COLETTI
`MS. A. MARTINA HUFNAL
`MR. SANTOSH CONTINHO
`Fish & Richardson
`222 Delaware Avenue
`17th Floor
`Wilmington, DE
`
`19899
`
`MR. GREGORY LOVE
`Stevens Love Firm
`111 West Tyler Street
`Longview, TX
`75601
`
`MR. WILLIAM E . "BO" DAVIS, III
`The Davis Firm
`111 West Tyler Street
`Longview, TX
`75601
`
`MR. BARRY P. GOLOB
`MR . KERRY B. MCTIGUE
`MR. W. BLAKE COBLENTZ
`Duane Morris
`505 9th Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC
`
`20004
`
`MR . RICHARD T. RUZICH
`Duane Morris
`190 South LaSalle Street
`Suite 3700
`Chicago, IL
`
`60603
`
`MR . HARRY L. GILLAM, JR .
`Gillam & Smith
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX
`75670
`
`MR. STEPHEN P. BENSON
`MR. DENNIS C. LEE
`Katten Muchin Rosenman
`525 West Monroe Street
`Suite 1600
`Chicago, IL
`
`60661
`
`Page 2 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 3 of 165 PageiD #: 6189
`
`3
`
`1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`
`2 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`(Watson)
`
`MR . LARRY PHILLIPS
`Siebman Reyno l ds Burg &
`Phillips
`300 North Travis Street
`Sherman, TX
`75090
`
`MR . GARY E . HOOD
`Polsinelli Shughart
`1 61 North Clark Street
`Suite 4200
`Chicago ,
`IL
`
`60601
`
`MS. ROBYN H . AST
`Polsinelli Shughart
`100 South 4th Street
`Suite 1000
`St . Louis , MO
`
`63102
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`****************************
`
`P R 0 C E E D I N G S
`
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER : All rise.
`
`THE COURT : Please be seated.
`
`Ms. Brooks .
`
`MS . BROOKS: Thank you , Your Honor .
`
`ANGELO P . TANNA, M.D., DEFENDANTS ' WITNESS ,
`
`PREVIOUSLY SWORN
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`21 BY MS . BROOKS :
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Good afternoon, Dr . Tanna.
`
`Good after, Ms. Brooks .
`
`Right before the lunch break ,
`
`I was
`
`25 frantically looking for a copy of Walters . We now have
`
`Page 3 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 4 of 165 PagelD #: 6190
`
`4
`
`1 one before you 1 n yo u r binder . And it ' s DTX138 .
`
`2 Oh ,
`
`I ' m sorry . That ' s the abs t ract actually, which you
`
`3 did look at . Now ,
`
`le t' s look at DTX 1 37 . And that is
`
`4 the Wa l ters paper.
`
`5
`
`So yo u say , Dr . Tan n a , you had not had a
`
`6 chance to look a t this before rendering your opinion ; is
`
`7 that right?
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`No , that ' s not true. Now that I see i t ,
`
`I do
`
`9 recognize it .
`
`I have looked at this reference.
`
`10
`
`Q.
`
`So you did consider i t
`
`in rendering your
`
`11 opinion?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`I did consider it , yes.
`
`All right . The n
`
`l et ' s
`
`l ook , if we could,
`
`14 please , at Bates No. 346 ,
`
`t h e page ending in that Bates
`
`15 number .
`
`16
`
`MS. BROOKS : An d h igh l ight , if we could ,
`
`17 in the right-hand col um n wh ere it begins similar
`
`1 8 means
`
`mean decreases in IOP .
`
`19
`
`20
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`346?
`
`(By Ms. Brooks) Yeah , 346 .
`
`It s h ould be the
`
`21 bottom right -:- hand corner ,
`
`t h e Bat es No . 0003 4 6 .
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Do you have that?
`
`Yes ,
`
`I do .
`
`Okay . And it ' s also up on t he screen .
`
`So let ' s see wh at Walters also disclosed abou t
`
`Page 4 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 5 of 165 PageiD #: 6191
`
`5
`
`1 this study.
`
`It says: Similar mean decreases in IOP
`
`2 were noted for both dosing regimens at hours 2, 4, and 7
`
`3
`
`in the diurnal measurements.
`
`4
`
`In the three - times - daily group , an additional
`
`5 mean decrease in IOP of 3.5 millimeters of mercury was
`
`6 observed at hour 9, after the morning dosing, or two
`
`7 hours following the afternoon dosing.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Do you see that , Dr . Tanna?
`
`Yes,
`
`I do .
`
`So isn't it true that one of skill in t he art
`
`11 would look at Walters and see that there was a
`
`12 statistically significant decrease in IOP at 9 . 0 hours
`
`13 after morning dosing on the three-times-a-day
`
`14 Brimonidine?
`
`15
`
`A .
`
`Yes. And it is overall, in my opinion, that
`
`16
`
`three-times-a-day Brimonidine is more effectiv e than
`
`17
`
`twice-a-day Brimonidine . And ,
`
`in fact, that is in my
`
`18
`
`expert opinion, and I used a different reference as the
`
`19 main reference for that , specifically Konstas .
`
`20
`
`THE COURT :
`
`Doctor, she hadn't asked you
`
`21 any of that .
`
`22
`
`23
`
`THE WIT NESS:
`
`I'm sorry, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`If they want you to repeat
`
`24 that testimony or what's in your expert report, they ' ll
`
`25 ask you . But unless everybody's not listening to me,
`
`Page 5 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 6 of 165 PageiD #: 6192
`
`6
`
`1
`
`the Court's going to start tightening up.
`
`I'm not here
`
`2 to listen to lectures.
`
`I'm here for you to answer the
`
`3 questions asked , and stop talking.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Are we clear?
`
`THE WITNESS : Yes , Your Honor .
`
`THE COURT : Thank you .
`
`Q .
`
`(By Ms . Brooks) And let 's just see if we can
`
`8 find the graph that correlates to this data in PTX134,
`
`9 which you don't have before you, Dr . Tanna , because it's
`
`10 too large, but has previously been discussed with
`
`11 Ms. Batoosingh.
`
`12
`
`MS. BROOKS :
`
`If we can go to PTX134 and
`
`13 specifically at Bates No . 676465, Mr . Exline.
`
`14
`
`Q .
`
`(By Ms. Brooks) And do you see this graph , Dr.
`
`15 Tanna?
`
`16
`
`17
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`Could you show the Court where that
`
`18 3.5-millimeters of mercury difference occurs between the
`
`19 twice-a-day dosing of Alphagan and the three-times-a-day
`
`20 dosing of Alphagan?
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`It's not doing
`
`Here, I' ll try to help you .
`
`I have a pointer. May I use a laser pointer?
`
`Sure. Or did I get it close right there?
`
`A. Well, that's it, yes.
`
`Page 6 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 7 of 165 Page!D #: 6193
`
`7
`
`1
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And so, again, you agree that -- one of
`
`2 skill in the ar t would know, based on this data, that
`
`3 there was an actual statistically significant decrease
`
`4
`
`in the reduc t ion of i ntraocular pressure at
`
`5 approximately hour 9 between the three - times - a-day
`
`6 dosing of Alphagan and the twice - a - day dosing?
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, in this study.
`
`Now, let's move to your discussion of how the
`
`9 amount of BAK that was claimed would have been obv i ous.
`
`10 You said the BAK was the most common preservative; is
`
`11 that correct?
`
`12
`
`A .
`
`Most commonly used in ophthalmic formula t ions,
`
`13 yes.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Q.
`
`And,
`
`i n fact, we saw --
`
`MS. BROOKS: Mr. Exline , could you pull
`
`16 up Defendants' Slide 1.0 that they used in opening
`
`17 statemen t ? And if not, I can always put it on the ELMO.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`There we · are.
`
`Q .
`
`(By Ms . Brooks) So this was shown to the Court
`
`20 by the De f endants in opening statement showing a ll the
`
`21 different drug products that contain BAK.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Do you agree with that, Dr . Tanna?
`
`I do .
`
`But let's look at the amount of BAK in these
`
`25
`
`various
`
`products.
`
`Isn't it true that there are no less
`
`Page 7 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 8 of 165 PageiD #: 6194
`
`8
`
`1
`
`than six different amounts of BAK in these various
`
`2 ophthalmic products?
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That looks right.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Let's move on now to your discussion of other
`
`6 combination drugs. You to l d us about a drug cal l ed
`
`7 Timpilo; is that right?
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I did, yes .
`
`And you told us about a drug called Cosopt.
`
`10 Of course, we know about that, right?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Yes.
`
`And a l so a drug called Xalacom; is that right?
`
`That's correct.
`
`In fact, on Slide 36 that you used, you showed
`
`15 both the Timpilo, the Cosopt, and the Xalacom .
`
`16
`
`Now, in look i ng more c l osely at the Timpilo
`
`17 picture that you used, that's not actually a picture of
`
`18 Timpilo, is it?
`
`19
`
`A .
`
`I don't know that -- I can't tell from that
`
`20 picture.
`
`I don't know .
`
`21
`
`·o .
`
`Isn't it, in fact ,
`
`just a picture of the
`
`22 bottle of Pilocarpine?
`
`23
`
`A .
`
`I don ' t
`
`think so, because it typically would
`
`24 have a green cap .
`
`So I can't tell from t his picture.
`
`I
`
`25 am no t sure what tha t 's a picture of.
`
`Page 8 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 9 of 165 PageiD #: 6195
`
`9
`
`1
`
`Q.
`
`Okay . Now, Timpi l o has never been approved
`
`2 for use in the United States, correct?
`
`3
`
`A .
`
`I was under the impression that it was in use
`
`4 in the United States .
`
`That's my impression .
`
`I could be
`
`5 mistaken about it, but my understanding is that it was
`
`6
`
`in use in the United States .
`
`7
`
`Q.
`
`Okay . What about Xalacom ; has Xalacom ever
`
`8 been approved for use in the United States?
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`11
`
`No , it has not .
`
`Now, while we're talki n g about Xalacom --
`
`MS . BROOKS : Let's just leave that up
`
`12
`
`there,
`
`if we could, Mr. Exline.
`
`13
`
`Q .
`
`(By Ms . Brooks ) We ' re going to revisit some
`
`1 4 organic chemistry .
`
`15
`
`Xalacom i s the active ingredient in
`
`16 La tanopros t; is that right?
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That ' s correct.
`
`And Latanoprost is what's known as a
`
`19 prostagland i n analog ; is that correct?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That is correct .
`
`Are the prostaglandin analogs norma ll y your
`
`22 first choice of medication for a new gla u coma patient?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`For me today , yes.
`
`And ,
`
`i n fact , the Latanoprost is sold here in
`
`25 the United States as Xalatan ; is that right?
`
`Page 9 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 10 of 165 PageiD #: 6196
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's correct.
`
`But the combination of Xalatan and Timolol,
`
`3 also known as Xalacom, has never been approved for use
`
`4
`
`in the United States; is that correct?
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That is correct .
`
`And you yourself have never prescribed the use
`
`7 for Xalacom, correct?
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`I have never prescribed Xalacom . That's
`
`9 correct .
`
`10
`
`Q.
`
`Now, in that same category of prostaglandin
`
`11 analogs, would you put Travoprost?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`14 correct?
`
`15
`
`16
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`It is in the same category.
`
`And that 's also known as Travatan ; is that
`
`That 's correct.
`
`There is no combination drug of Travatan and
`
`17 Timolol approved for us in the United States; is that
`
`18 correct?
`
`19
`
`20
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`Tha t is correct.
`
`And also within what you would call a
`
`21 prostaglandin analog , or we would call a prostamide, is
`
`22 a compound called Bimatoprost.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Are you familiar with that?
`
`Yes ,
`
`I am .
`
`And Bimatoprost is sold here in the United
`
`Page 10 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 11 of 165 PageiD #: 6197
`
`11
`
`1 States by Allergan under the name Lumigan.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Ar e you fami l iar with that?
`
`Yes ,
`
`I am .
`
`There are no -- I
`
`think you mentioned t h at
`
`5 Ganfo r t, wh ich was a combination of Bimatoprost/Timolol
`
`6 drug ; is that right?
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Correct .
`
`But Ganfort is not approved for use here in
`
`9 the United States ; is t h at correct ?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`No , it ' s not.
`
`And just to show how subtle d i fferences make a
`
`1 2 very b i g difference , Bimatoprost and Latanoprost , would
`
`13 you put the m in t he same category as far as mechanism of
`
`14 action?
`
`15
`
`A .
`
`Th ere may be small differences in terms of the
`
`16 mechanism of actio n.
`
`I
`
`think it ' s a matter of
`
`17 controversy .
`
`18
`
`Q.
`
`We l l ,
`
`in f act , Latanopros t is what ' s known as
`
`19 1 7 - p h enyl-PGF2 - alpha , correct?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`I know there ' s a PGF2 - alpha - agonist .
`
`Okay . And at the C1 position on the alpha
`
`22 chain is an ester ; is that righ t ?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`That I don ' t know offhand .
`
`So I may know a lit t le more organ i c chemistry .
`
`25 What about Bimatoprost? Ar e you aware that if t h e Cl
`
`Page 11 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 12 of 165 PageiD #: 6198
`
`12
`
`1 position o n the alpha chai n of Bi matoprost is an amide?
`
`2
`
`A.
`
`I be l ieve that I can picture t h at and agree
`
`3 with you on that , but I would have to look at the
`
`4 structure to be s u re.
`
`It's a complex - -
`
`it ' s a big
`
`5 molecule , and I don ' t know offhand for s u re .
`
`6
`
`Q .
`
`Wo u ld you agree wit h me that a n ester is
`
`7 differen t
`
`t han an ami d e?
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`It certain l y is .
`
`And can , in fact , behave differently in situ?
`
`Yes , it can .
`
`Now, let ' s go to -- back to the T i mpilo . You
`
`12 should have in your binder, Dr . Tan n a ,
`
`t h e labe l for
`
`13 Timpilo ,
`
`I hope. And I don ' t know if we numbered it
`
`14 since it wasn't actua l ly previous l y in use , but i f you
`
`15 go through your binder , you should see a
`
`l abe l for
`
`16 Timpilo .
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Can you tell me approx i mately where?
`
`Oh , it ' s not in your binder . Sorr y.
`
`MS . BROOKS : May I approach , Your Honor?
`
`TH E COURT: Yes.
`
`Q .
`
`(By Ms . Brooks) Now, Dr . Ta n na , you ' ve
`
`22 referred t o T impilo as a combination drug ; is that
`
`23 right?
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A .
`
`I t is a co mbination drug , yes .
`
`Q. Well , if we act u a l ly --
`
`Page 12 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 13 of 165 PageiD #: 6199
`
`13
`
`1
`
`MS . BROOKS :
`
`If we can go to the ELMO,
`
`2 Mr. Exline.
`
`3
`
`Q.
`
`(By Ms . Brooks) And here's the label for
`
`4 Timpilo.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 cam up there?
`
`THE COURT: Not quite. Here we go .
`
`COURTROOM DEPUTY: Can you push the doc
`
`8
`
`MS . BROOKS:
`
`I sure can. Let's see here.
`
`9 Doc cam?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`COURTROOM DEPUTY : Uh-huh.
`
`MS. BROOKS : Perhaps --Mr . Exline, do
`
`12 you know -- do we have the Timpilo label in the system?
`
`13 We don't? Okay .
`
`It would help if I turn it on .
`
`I
`
`14 apologize. There we go .
`
`It's my fault.
`
`I 'm sorry.
`
`I
`
`15 didn't even turn it on .
`
`16
`
`Q.
`
`(By Ms. Brooks) Dr. Tanna, isn't it a fact
`
`17 that Timpilo is dispensed in what is described as a
`
`18 unique, two-chambered vial system?
`
`19
`
`20
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes .
`
`And one of the chambers contains a
`
`21 concentrated solution of Timolol and Pilocarpine at a pH
`
`22 of approximately 3.5; is that right?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct . Correct.
`
`Now, in relation to the pH of the eye, 3 . 5 is
`
`25 extremely acidic, is it not?
`
`Page 13 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 14 of 165 PageiD #: 6200
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`A .
`
`It is more acidic than the ocular surface and
`
`the pH of the eye in general , yes .
`
`Q .
`
`And the need for this low pH is to prevent the
`
`4 hydrolysis of Pilocarpine prior to dispensing ; is
`
`that
`
`5 correct?
`
`6
`
`7
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`So you would agree wi th me , Dr . Tanna ,
`
`that a
`
`8 pH can have a significant effect on an active
`
`9
`
`ingredient?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Yes, it can .
`
`And it says the other chamber contains -- can
`
`12 you pronounce that word for me , so I make sure I say it
`
`13 right?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`It ' s diluent.
`
`Diluent so lut io n wi th a pH of 7 . 8 to 8 . 2 for
`
`16 Timpilo 2 ; and 8.5 to 9.5 for Ti mpilo 4 .
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`Did I read that correct ly?
`
`Yes, you did.
`
`And the two solutions are separated by an
`
`20 internal plug?
`
`21
`
`22
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Yes .
`
`So this isn ' t
`
`the convenience of having two
`
`23 active ingredients in one bottle , correct?
`
`24
`
`A .
`
`It is a little more complicated than that .
`
`25 You have to mix them together effectively by using the
`
`Page 14 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 15 of 165 PageiD #: 6201
`
`1 5
`
`1 system .
`
`2
`
`Q.
`
`And for whatever formu l ation reason ,
`
`the
`
`3 for mu l ators were not able t o simply put the Timolo l and
`
`4 the P il ocarpi n e in t o one bo t tle for shelf life?
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Correct.
`
`And had to go to t h is two - chambered system
`
`7 with two different pHs and a plug in t h e mi ddle ; is t h at
`
`8 right?
`
`9
`
`10
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Th at ' s rig h t
`
`.
`
`Now , another -- so that ' s the
`
`11 Pi l ocarpine/Timolol one .
`
`12
`
`You also men t ioned a combination produ ct
`
`13 ca ll e d Probeta , which is Levobunolol a n d Di pive f rin?
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1 7 go?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20 back .
`
`I t's p rono u nced Dipive f rin ( p r onou n ces )
`
`Dipivefrin (pronounces) .
`
`Tha nk you .
`
`MS . BROOKS: Should I push some t hing to
`
`MR . LOVE :
`
`I t
`
`' s there .
`
`MS . BROO KS : There we go .
`
`I thi n k we ' re
`
`21
`
`Q .
`
`(By Ms . Brooks) And t hat ' s called Probeta ; is
`
`22 that right?
`
`23
`
`2 4
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That's correct .
`
`Th at ' s available in Canada .
`
`So that ' s never bee n approved for use here in
`
`25 the United States, correct?
`
`Page 15 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 16 of 165 PageiD #: 6202
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`That 's correct.
`
`And you yourself have never prescribed it?
`
`Correct.
`
`Then we have the Xalacom, which we've already
`
`5
`
`talked about, the Ganfort which we've already talked
`
`6 about, and then something where it ' s Travoprost/Timolol
`
`7 combination; is that right?
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`DuoTrav, yes .
`
`DuoTrav . That also has never been approved
`
`10 for use in the United States, correct?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`Tha t's correct.
`
`And you yourself have never prescribed it?
`
`That's correct.
`
`Now,
`
`I take it you weren ' t part of -- well,
`
`15 have you ever been part of an FDA approval process for a
`
`16 combination drug?
`
`17
`
`A. Well, we were one of the clinical trial
`
`18 centers for DuoTrav for one of the Phase 3 studies in
`
`19 the U.S.
`
`20
`
`Q .
`
`So there were Phase 3 clinical trials
`
`21 conducted on DuoTrav here in the United States, correct?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`. A.
`
`That's .correct .
`
`Q.
`
`And
`
`I assume that you, as one of the centers,
`
`24 attempted to perform those studies accurately, correct?
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`Yes, we did.
`
`Page 16 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08111 Page 17 of 165 PageiD #: 6203
`
`17
`
`1
`
`Q.
`
`And attempted to gather the best data that you
`
`2 could?
`
`3
`
`4
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`And despite your efforts and all the other
`
`5 centers' efforts, to this day, the FDA has refused to
`
`6 approve DuoTrav for use in the United States?
`
`7
`
`A.
`
`That's correct. They're stuck in the
`
`8 approvable letter stage.
`
`9
`
`Q.
`
`And that's been going on for years, has it
`
`10 not?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`Just a couple more areas to cover, Dr. Tann a .
`
`13 You showed us DTX167 on direct examination. That was
`
`14 the Larsson reference, and you said that this showed
`
`15
`
`t h at the patients -- well, actually, why don't you te ll
`
`16 us your recollection of what this study showed.
`
`17
`
`A. Well, this looked at normal subjects, not
`
`18 normal volunteers, and t hey were dosed with Timolol
`
`19 concomitantly with Brimonidine, each on a sort of BID
`
`20 schedule, but only a total of three doses were given.
`
`21 And then the investigators evaluated the rate of
`
`22 production of aqueous humor in the eyes as well as the
`
`23 intraocular pressure. And what they observed was that
`
`24 the intraocular pressure was lowest in the group of
`
`25 people getting both Timolol and Brimonidine, and the
`
`Page 17 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 18 of 165 PageiD #: 6204
`
`18
`
`1 aqueous product i on f l ow rate was also lowest in that
`
`2 group . And t h e pressures were higher in the other two
`
`3 groups , people getting just Timolo l or just Brimonidine.
`
`4
`
`Q.
`
`So this would lead one to believe that t h ere
`
`5 may be some benefit to concomitant therapy wit h Ti mo l o l
`
`6 a n d Brimonidine , correct?
`
`7
`
`A .
`
`I t sort of validates and explains that when
`
`8 you us e the two together , you get a lower pressure and
`
`9 you get an additive reduction in the prod u ction of
`
`10 aqueous humor .
`
`11
`
`Q .
`
`But this doesn ' t te l l anyone of ski l l in the
`
`1 2 ar t whether one wo u ld be able to successfully combine
`
`13 these two drugs in the same bottle , correct?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That is correct .
`
`And the individuals who were tested in this
`
`16 reference were actually healthy volunteers and not
`
`17 actually individuals suffering fro m glaucoma ; is that
`
`18 right?
`
`19
`
`2 0
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`2 1 given?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That is correct .
`
`And th ere were only a to t al of t hree doses
`
`That is correct .
`
`And Larsson itself, this reference , is
`
`24 actua ll y disclosed on the face of all of t he patent s
`
`i n
`
`25
`
`t his case ; is that right?
`
`Page 18 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 19 of 165 PageiD #: 6205
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That is correct.
`
`Now, let's move on . You showed and discussed
`
`3 with the Court the 19T study and the 0 - - 507T study.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Do you remember that?
`
`I do .
`
`Now , neither the 19T study nor the 507T study
`
`7 are prior art to the patents-at-issue; is that correct?
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That is correct.
`
`Now, let's go, if we could, to your written
`
`10 description opinion.
`
`11
`
`You stated in your opinion that Claims 1, 2 ,
`
`12 and 3 of the '1 49 patent were invalid based on lack of
`
`13 written description; is that right?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's correct .
`
`You did not render that opinion in relation to
`
`16 Claim 4, correct?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Tha t is correct .
`
`Now, Claims 1, 2, and 3 deal with a method of
`
`19 treating g l aucoma or ocular hypertension by topical
`
`20 administration of about
`
`2 £,
`0 Brimonidine by weight to an
`
`•
`
`21 eye of a person in need thereof , said improvement
`
`22 comprising topically administering to said eye in a
`
`23 single composition about .2% Brimonidine by weight and
`
`24 about .5% Timolol by weight twice a day as the sole
`
`25 active agents, wherein said method is as effective as
`
`Page 19 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 20 of 165 PageiD #: 6206
`
`20
`
`1 admi nistration of . 5% Timo l ol twice a day and
`
`.2%
`
`2 Brimonidine three times a day to said eye , wherein the
`
`3
`
`two compounds are administered i n separate compositions .
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Did I get the c l aim correct, I hope?
`
`Yes .
`
`All right . Now , let's look at where the
`
`7 effectiveness of administration is discussed in the
`
`8 patent i t self.
`
`9
`
`If you would go , please , sir , to Column 4 and
`
`10 begi n with Example 2 . Do you see t h at?
`
`11
`
`A .
`
`I do .
`
`I can go to it in my own exhibit ,
`
`12 because I can ' t see -- okay . There we go .
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Q .
`
`There we go .
`
`So this is saying here , this is a study that
`
`15 it ' s describing, correct?
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`In Example 2 , yes.
`
`Yes .
`
`Uh - h u h.
`
`And did you have an oppor t unity , Dr . Tanna ,
`
`t o
`
`20 compare the description of this study to the 13 T study
`
`21 that was submitted by Al1ergan to the FDA?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I did .
`
`Now, were yo u here when Dr . Whitcup tes t ified?
`
`I was.
`
`Did yo u hear Dr . Whitcup say that what the FDA
`
`Page 20 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 21 of 165 PageiD #: 6207
`
`2 1
`
`1 requires for initial clinical trials of a combination
`
`2 product is that the combination product be compared to
`
`3 each of the monotherapies?
`
`4
`
`5
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Yes ,
`
`I heard him say that.
`
`And you have no reason to disagree wit h that ;
`
`6
`
`i s that right?
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`I don ' t disagree .
`
`So what t h e FDA wanted to see was t h e efficacy
`
`9 of Combigan as compared to Brimonidi n e
`
`t h ree-times - a-day
`
`10 monotherapy , correct?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Yes.
`
`And the FDA wanted to see the efficacy of
`
`13 Combigan as compared to twice-a-day Timolol monotherapy ,
`
`14 correct?
`
`15
`
`A .
`
`That was part of what the FDA wanted to see ,
`
`16 yes .
`
`1 7
`
`Q .
`
`And if we go on Example 2, which begins at
`
`18 Co l umn 4 f Line 4 9,
`
`i t goes a l l
`
`the way thro u gh to the
`
`19 bot t om of Column 4 , all the way through to the Co l umn 5 ,
`
`20 and all the through to Co l umn 6 f 7, 8 , and essentia ll y
`
`21 ends at Col u mn 9 where it ends with Examp l e 2 · f
`
`is that
`
`22 right , Dr . Tanna?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That ' s correct .
`
`And what the conc l usion as reported of the 1 3T
`
`25 study in the patent says: Conclusions-- and I 'll stic k
`
`Page 21 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 22 of 165 Page!D #: 6208
`
`22
`
`1 with the right specification so we have the numbers
`
`2 right.
`
`3
`
`Conclusion starts at the bottom of Column 8
`
`4 and runs over into Column 9. Here we go .
`
`5
`
`Conclus i ons: The combination treatment ,
`
`6 Brimonidine Tartrate .2% with Timolol . 5% administered
`
`7 twice a day for t h ree months was superior to Timolol
`
`8
`
`twice a day and Brimonidine t hree times a day in
`
`9
`
`lowering the elevated IOP with patients with glaucoma or
`
`10 ocular hypertension; is that right?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`That's what it says.
`
`And it says the combination administered twice
`
`13 a day demonstrated a favorable safety profile that was
`
`14 comparab l e to Ti molo l
`
`tw ice a day and better tha n
`
`15 Brimonidine three times a day with regard to the
`
`16 incidence of adverse events and discontinuations due to
`
`17 adverse events ; is that right?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`Yes.
`
`So all of this is in the specification of the
`
`20
`
`' 149 patent , correct?
`
`21
`
`22
`
`A .
`
`That's correct .
`
`. Q.
`
`Both the methodology of how the test was run ,
`
`23 correct?
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That ' s correct .
`
`The fact that there were three groups in the
`
`Page 22 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 23 of 165 PageiD #: 6209
`
`23
`
`1 test, correct?
`
`2
`
`3
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`4 correct?
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`The dosing regimen for each of the groups,
`
`Correct.
`
`And, in fact, Dr . Whitcup told us t ha t
`
`in
`
`7 order for the Timolol-only group not to know that they
`
`8 weren ' t getting Brimonidine, they were given a
`
`t hird
`
`9 drop as a placebo?
`
`10
`
`A.
`
`And the same is true for the fixed combination
`
`11 group .
`
`12
`
`Q.
`
`Exactly.
`
`So in order to keep this a
`
`13 double-masked study, there was even a placebo drop
`
`14 administered to the combination group, and a placebo
`
`15 drop administered to the Timolol monotherapy group; is
`
`16 that right?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`19 correct?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Right . That's very standard.
`
`And this is all detailed in the patent ,
`
`Correct.
`
`Then if we look specifical l y at Table -- t h e
`
`22 table that is at the bot tom of Column 3, Mr. Beck told
`
`23 us that this is the actual formulation that was the
`
`24 final formulation for Combigan.
`
`25
`
`Are you aware of that, Dr. Tanna?
`
`Page 23 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 24 of 165 PageiD #: 6210
`
`24
`
`1
`
`A .
`
`That he testified to t hat effect ,
`
`I was n ot
`
`2 aware of that , but I accep t
`
`t hat to be tr u e .
`
`3
`
`Q .
`
`Okay .
`
`So in t h e patent , one of skill in the
`
`4 art would know how to ma k e Combigan , correct?
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`Correct .
`
`And one of skill in the art wou l d k n ow how to
`
`7 co nduct a study to determine whether or not Combigan was
`
`8 as effective as Brimonidine three-times-a-day
`
`9 monot h erapy and as effective as Ti molol twice - a - day
`
`10 monotherapy , correct?
`
`11
`
`A .
`
`That one wou l dn ' t know how to conduct such a
`
`12 study?
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Q .
`
`A .
`
`Yes .
`
`I t
`
`' s a l l laid out in the patent itself .
`
`I'm not sure it real l y tells you how to
`
`15 conduct a study in the future .
`
`I don't -- I don ' t see
`
`16 tha t
`
`in the pate n t
`
`.
`
`17
`
`Q.
`
`Is t h e met h odo l ogy of the study laid out in
`
`18 the patent ?
`
`19
`
`A .
`
`Th e methodology of the study that was do n e in
`
`20 the exa mp l e is laid o u t
`
`in the patent , but you ' re
`
`21 describing a different s t udy , aren ' t you?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`2 4
`
`Maybe I misunderstood .
`
`Q .
`
`Oh ,
`
`I ' m sorry , Dr . Tanna.
`
`The st u dy as described in the patent is a
`
`25 study where Combi gan or the combination product was
`
`Page 24 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 25 of 165 PageiD # : 6211
`
`25
`
`1 compared to Brimo ni dine t h ree-times-a-day mo n otherapy
`
`2 and was compared to T i molol t wice-a-day monotherapy ,
`
`3 correct?
`
`4
`
`5
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`6 correct?
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That ' s correc t.
`
`And that st u dy is l aid out in the patent,
`
`Yes, it is . Yes .
`
`And the results of that stud y are laid o u t
`
`in
`
`9 the patent , correct?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`Yes .
`
`And the f ormu l ation for the combi n ation
`
`12 product is out -- a l so spe ll ed out in the patent ,
`
`13 correct?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Tha t' s correct .
`
`Than k you.
`
`Now ,
`
`I have jus t one more area of q u estioning ,
`
`17 and it sort of goes to yo u r overa l l obviousness opinion.
`
`18
`
`My understanding , if I heard you correctly ,
`
`19 Dr . Tanna, is t h at -- we l l ,
`
`I do n' t want to overstate
`
`20
`
`i t
`
`. You seem to show us references t hat would encourage
`
`21 one to want to combine Brimonidi n e wi t h Timolol in the
`
`22 same bottle .
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Correct .
`
`And yo u d i dn ' t
`
`s h ow u s any references that
`
`25 might discourage one fro m doi n g that ; is that right?
`
`Page 25 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 26 of 165 PageiD #: 6212
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`A .
`
`Q.
`
`That ' s correct.
`
`Now, let ' s
`
`look at the Brimonidine label
`
`3 itself.
`
`It's DTX129 that you showed the Court.
`
`4
`
`MS . BROOKS: And if we go to the second
`
`5 page of that reference and blow up, Mr. Exline .
`
`It ' s
`
`6 very hard to see, but if we can blow up the top part
`
`7 here.
`
`8
`
`Oops,
`
`I don't know what happened.
`
`If you
`
`9 can -- the second column, if we can blow up about
`
`a
`
`1 0 little lower than that, please, about
`
`blow up the top
`
`11 part but all the way to where there's a break.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`There we go.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Ms. Brooks) If we look right down here,
`
`14 Dr. Tanna, right before it says at the very bottom
`
`15 tricyclic antidepressants.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Do you see that?
`
`A.
`
`I do it .
`
`It specifically says to use it with
`
`18 caution and take with beta - blockers.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`Timolol is a beta-blocker?
`
`That's correct.
`
`And the actual label for Brimonidine tells one
`
`22 of skill in the art to combine Brimonidine with caution
`
`23 with a beta-blocker, correct?
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`Q .
`
`That's correct.
`
`And certainly one of skill in the art would
`
`Page 26 of 166
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00097-JRG Document 241 Filed 08/08/11 Page 27 of 165 PageiD #: 6213
`
`27
`
`1 have read t h e
`
`l abel?
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A .
`
`Q .
`
`That ' s correct .
`
`Thank you .
`
`MS. BROOKS : No furt h er questions .
`
`THE COURT : Redirect?
`
`REDIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`7 BY MR . BENSON :
`
`Q .
`
`A .
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Good afternoon , Dr. Tanna.
`
`Good afternoon .
`
`MR . BENSON :
`
`If I cou l d have t h e Timpilo
`
`11 reference th a t Counsel was showin

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