throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`MD/sp
` ------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ------------------------
` PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
` Petitioner
` v.
` HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.
` Patent Owner
`
`
`
` PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT
` NO. 8,404,215/AND U.S. PATENT NO. 8,642,012
`
`
`
` ------------------------
` This is the Deposition of NEAL SONDHEIMER, held at
` the Offices of VICTORY VERBATIM REPORTING SERVICES, Suite
` 900, 222 Bay Street, Ernst & Young Tower, Toronto-Dominion
` Centre, Toronto, Ontario, on the 10th day of March, 2016.
`
`
`
` ------------------------
`
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S:
` DAVID H. SILVERSTEIN} --- for the Petitioner
` AZIZ BURGY }
` Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider
` 114 West 47th Street
` New York, New York 10036
` EMER SIMIC } --- for the Patent Owner
` ROBERT GREEN}
` Green Griffith
` NBC Tower
` 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
` Suite 3100
` Chicago, Illinois 60611
` ALSO PRESENT:
` Lauren Stevens
`
`
`Page 1 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
`
` PAGE NUMBER
`
`NEAL SONDHEIMER, affirmed
` Examination by:
` Ms. Simic 3 - 188
` Re-Examination by:
` Mr. Silverstein 188 - 233
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS 234
`CERTIFICATION 235
`ERRATA 236
`
`
`Page 2 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 3
`
`
`
` 1 --- upon convening at 9:00 a.m.
`
` 2 --- upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.
`
` 3
`
`
`
` 4 MR. WEINGOTT: Good morning. It is nine
`
` 5 o'clock on the 10th of March, 2016. We're
`
` 6 at the offices of Victory Verbatim. This
`
` 7 is the deposition of Neal Sondheimer in the
`
` 8 matter of Par Pharmaceutical v. Horizon
`
` 9 Therapeutics. The reporter today is
`
`10 Matthew Dixon and the videographer is Aaron
`
`11 Weingott. Could I please have the parties
`
`12 introduce themselves and who they act for?
`
`13 MS. SIMIC: Emer Simic from Green
`
`14 Griffith & Borg-Breen and with me is my
`
`15 colleague, Robert Green, also of Green
`
`16 Griffith. We represent Horizon
`
`17 Therapeutics Inc., and also with us today
`
`18 is Lauren Stevens from Horizon Therapeutics
`
`19 Inc.
`
`20 MR. SILVERSTEIN: David Silverstein from
`
`21 Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, representing
`
`22 Par Pharmaceutical Inc. in this matter, and
`
`23 with me is my colleague, Aziz Burgy, also
`
`24 from the Axinn firm.
`
`25 MR. DIXON: So I'm just going to
`
`
`Page 3 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 4
`
`
`
` 1 administer the oath, sir. Would you just
`
` 2 raise your right hand? Do you solemnly
`
` 3 affirm that the evidence you're about to
`
` 4 give today will the truth, the whole truth
`
` 5 and nothing but the truth?
`
` 6 MR. SONDHEIMER: I do.
`
` 7 MR. DIXON: Very good. Thank you.
`
` 8
`
`
`
` 9 NEAL SONDHEIMER, affirmed
`
`10 EXAMINATION BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`11
`
`
`
`12 Q. Good morning, Dr. Sondheimer.
`
`13 A. Good morning.
`
`14 Q. So Dr. Sondheimer, you have
`
`15 submitted an expert declaration in the inter partes
`
`16 review concerning U.S. patent number 8,642,012. Is
`
`17 that right?
`
`18 A. That's correct.
`
`19 Q. Okay. I will give you a copy of
`
`20 your declaration. It has been marked pursuant to
`
`21 the IPR, Exhibit 1002. So Dr. Sondheimer, in your
`
`22 declaration, Exhibit 1002, at page 33 you state
`
`23 that, "A person of ordinary..." At paragraph 66:
`
`24 "...A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`25 would have recognized that the experiments
`
`
`Page 4 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 5
`
`
`
` 1 in Brusilow '91 by themselves were
`
` 2 insufficient to completely determine the
`
` 3 excretion rate of PAGN after a dose of PAA,
`
` 4 and would have sought additional
`
` 5 information, such as that contained in
`
` 6 Shiple and Sherwin to identify the true
`
` 7 rate of conversion..."
`
` 8 Correct?
`
` 9 A. That's correct. I will be calling
`
`10 it Shiple.
`
`11 Q. Sorry, how do you pronounce...
`
`12 A. Shiple.
`
`13 Q. Shiple, okay, me too, then. So both
`
`14 Sherwin and Shiple report on the conversion rate of
`
`15 PAA to PAGN in healthy subjects, correct?
`
`16 A. That's correct. They are normal
`
`17 subjects.
`
`18 Q. Okay, and so they're not reporting
`
`19 on conversion of PAA to PAGN in UCD patients. Is
`
`20 that right?
`
`21 A. That's correct.
`
`22 Q. Okay, and prior to August, 2008, a
`
`23 POSA would not have expected the amount of
`
`24 conversion of PAA to PAGN in healthy subjects to be
`
`25 the same as that in a urea cycle disorder patient.
`
`
`Page 5 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 6
`
`
`
` 1 Is that right?
`
` 2 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
` 3 THE DEPONENT: No, that's incorrect.
`
` 4 They would have expected it to be roughly
`
` 5 the same based on the evidence in Shiple.
`
` 6
`
`
`
` 7 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
` 8 Q. And when you said "based on the
`
` 9 evidence in Shiple", what do you mean by that?
`
`10 A. So it would be easiest to discuss in
`
`11 looking at the section on Shiple.
`
`12 Q. Is that page 21?
`
`13 A. So we will be looking at the
`
`14 description on page 21, and also referring at times
`
`15 to the table, which is given on page 29, which is
`
`16 from Shiple.
`
`17 Q. Okay, and how does Shiple support
`
`18 the statement that you made that the data would be
`
`19 roughly the same in terms of PAA conversion to PAGN
`
`20 between healthy patients and urea cycle disorder
`
`21 patients?
`
`22 A. Sure. So I'll be comparing the
`
`23 conversion...actually, the urea synthesis that
`
`24 occurs in Shiple with the urea synthesis that occurs
`
`25 in Brusilow '91.
`
`
`Page 6 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 7
`
`
`
` 1 Q. Okay.
`
` 2 A. So in Shiple there was an experiment
`
` 3 where a normal individual was given PAA or benzoate
`
` 4 in varying amounts over the course of a seven-day
`
` 5 experiment. The experiment is listed on page 29
`
` 6 with its data.
`
` 7 So if you look at the first three periods,
`
` 8 which are 24-hour periods, these are full days in
`
` 9 which the individual was given no medication. So
`
`10 you can see what normal ureagenesis would look like
`
`11 in that individual.
`
`12 So if you look, for instance, at the
`
`13 percentage of total nitrogen during the periods 1, 2
`
`14 and 3, it's approximately 75 percent of the total
`
`15 nitrogen that's excreted is urea nitrogen.
`
`16 After the first three 24-hour periods,
`
`17 Shiple is giving either benzoate or phenyl acetate
`
`18 at different amounts in different sub-segments of
`
`19 those periods. So for example, if you look in
`
`20 period 4, when benzoate is provided in several of
`
`21 the segments the urea synthesis as a percentage of
`
`22 total nitrogen drops, and you see glycocoll
`
`23 appearing in the urine. Glycocoll is an older name
`
`24 for the amino acid glycine.
`
`25 In the first three periods neither glycine
`
`
`Page 7 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 8
`
`
`
` 1 nor glutamine will appear in the urine because the
`
` 2 kidneys don't excrete amino acids typically. Only
`
` 3 after giving either benzoate, which conjugates
`
` 4 glycocoll or glycine to form hippurate or
`
` 5 phenylacetic acid which conjugates glutamine to make
`
` 6 phenylacetal glutamine, will you see glycine or
`
` 7 glutamine appear.
`
` 8 If you look now down at the period 7,
`
` 9 which is a period in which benzoate wasn't
`
`10 given...only phenylacetate was given, and it was
`
`11 given in doses that approximate on a molar basis a
`
`12 relevant amount that would be given to a patient
`
`13 with urea cycle defect.
`
`14 If you look at what happens to urea as a
`
`15 percentage of total nitrogen, it drops down to a low
`
`16 figure of 12 percent of total nitrogen excreted,
`
`17 whereas glutamine rises up to a total of 52 percent.
`
`18 What this indicates is that there is a shifting of
`
`19 nitrogen excretion from urea synthesis to excretion
`
`20 in phenylacetal glutamine.
`
`21 It may help now to look at earlier in the
`
`22 declaration at page 11, which is a figure of how
`
`23 amino acids flow into the urea cycle. So you can
`
`24 see that glutamine and glycine are donors into an
`
`25 ammonia pool which has to be processed through the
`
`
`Page 8 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 9
`
`
`
` 1 urea cycle.
`
` 2 The role of medications like PAA prodrugs
`
` 3 or benzoate is to divert those amino acids so that
`
` 4 ammonia is not formed.
`
` 5 What Shiple found is that urea synthesis
`
` 6 is remarkably suppressed in a healthy individual who
`
` 7 is given PAA in pharmacologically relevant doses.
`
` 8 In this case it's falling in a period after a
`
` 9 medically relevant dose to about 12 percent of
`
`10 nitrogen excretion.
`
`11 You can compare that to the residual urea
`
`12 synthesis capacity, for example, in Brusilow. So
`
`13 I...
`
`14 Q. Would you like to refer to Brusilow?
`
`15 A. Yes, if I could have Brusilow '91.
`
`16 Q. I'm handing Dr. Sondheimer Brusilow
`
`17 '91, which is Exhibit 1012 in the IPR.
`
`18 A. So we will turn here to table 2,
`
`19 which is on page 148. We're looking at the urea
`
`20 synthesis in a urea cycle defect patient who is
`
`21 being given doses of either phenylacetate or sodium
`
`22 phenylbutyrate, and you will see that the ratio
`
`23 between the urea nitrogen and the total nitrogen
`
`24 excretion is within the same range of that that is
`
`25 being observed in Shiple in the patient who is
`
`
`Page 9 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 10
`
`
`
` 1 treated.
`
` 2 What that means is that for urea cycle
`
` 3 defect patients, most of them have residual urea
`
` 4 synthesis capacity, and that urea synthesis capacity
`
` 5 roughly matches what happens to a normal individual
`
` 6 who is given pharmacologically relevant doses.
`
` 7 That's not surprising because that's the
`
` 8 reason that these medications are used. There is a
`
` 9 diversion of nitrogen away from the urea cycle
`
`10 through the use of these medications.
`
`11 Therefore, data that is established in
`
`12 references like Sherwin and Comte, which are
`
`13 obtained in normal individuals, also Collins, are
`
`14 relevant to the evaluation of the conversion of PAA
`
`15 to PAGN in patients with urea cycle defects because
`
`16 the degree of diversion is roughly the same.
`
`17 Q. Okay. So just so I understand, your
`
`18 ultimate conclusion is that data concerning PAA to
`
`19 PAGN conversion in healthy subjects is relevant to
`
`20 the determination of what PAA to PAGN conversion
`
`21 would be in urea cycle disorder subjects. Is that
`
`22 right?
`
`23 A. It provides relevant information to
`
`24 a person of ordinary skill in the art. There are
`
`25 variations in every experiment that is performed and
`
`
`Page 10 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 11
`
`
`
` 1 in every clinical study, but it does provide useful
`
` 2 information.
`
` 3 Q. And the references that you rely on
`
` 4 in your report, Sherwin, Exhibit 1016, and Shiple,
`
` 5 Exhibit 1017, those references both concern healthy
`
` 6 subjects, correct?
`
` 7 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
` 8 THE DEPONENT: So Sherwin and Shiple are
`
` 9 both presumably healthy subjects. That's
`
`10 how the authors describe them.
`
`11
`
`
`
`12 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`13 Q. Just to follow up on one point, I
`
`14 believe it's at page 29 of your report. With
`
`15 respect to the Shiple reference you provide a table
`
`16 2 from Shiple on page 29. Is that right?
`
`17 A. That's correct.
`
`18 Q. And you mentioned on day 7 of the
`
`19 study that four grams of phenylacetic acid were fed
`
`20 to the patient at, I believe, four hours. Is that
`
`21 right?
`
`22 A. So it's...it would be helpful...do
`
`23 you have Shiple?
`
`24 Q. I do.
`
`25 A. I just want to be sure that I'm
`
`
`Page 11 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 12
`
`
`
` 1 stating this correctly.
`
` 2 Q. Sure. I am handing to the witness
`
` 3 the reference we're referring to as Shiple, which is
`
` 4 Exhibit 1017.
`
` 5 A. So if you look at page 621 of
`
` 6 Shiple, in the second paragraph, complete paragraph,
`
` 7 starting in table 2, Shiple describes how the
`
` 8 medication is provided to the subject. So the days
`
` 9 of feeding have been divided into sub-periods of
`
`10 varying length, and the acid, either phenylacetic
`
`11 acid or benzoic acid, is ingested during a certain
`
`12 sub-period and was always taken at the beginning of
`
`13 the sub-period.
`
`14 So that is where he is describing sort of
`
`15 how to read table 2.
`
`16 Q. Okay. So for day 7...
`
`17 A. M'hm.
`
`18 Q. ...four grams of phenylacetic acid
`
`19 were administered to the patient at the beginning of
`
`20 the period. Is that right?
`
`21 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`22 THE DEPONENT: That appears to be what
`
`23 Shiple is describing.
`
`24
`
`
`
`25 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`
`Page 12 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 13
`
`
`
` 1 Q. Okay, and later in the day, on day
`
` 2 7, six grams of phenylacetic were administered to
`
` 3 that same patient. Is that right?
`
` 4 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
` 5 THE DEPONENT: That's correct.
`
` 6
`
`
`
` 7 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
` 8 Q. Okay, and if you just look at the
`
` 9 right-hand side of the table, it says in the very
`
`10 far right-hand side, the top heading says:
`
`11 "...Phenylacetic acid fed percentage..."
`
`12 Do you see that?
`
`13 A. I do.
`
`14 Q. And does that refer to the amount of
`
`15 phenylacetic acid that was fed to the patient and
`
`16 then detoxicated? Is that right?
`
`17 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, foundation.
`
`18 THE DEPONENT: I'm sorry. Say the
`
`19 question again.
`
`20
`
`
`
`21 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`22 Q. So let me ask it in a different
`
`23 way. Does the percentage of phenylacetic acid fed,
`
`24 which is a heading in table 2...
`
`25 A. Yes.
`
`
`Page 13 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 14
`
`
`
` 1 Q. ...does that refer to the amount of
`
` 2 phenylacetic acid that was detoxicated by that
`
` 3 patient?
`
` 4 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Same objection.
`
` 5 THE DEPONENT: It's the percentage of
`
` 6 phenylacetic acid that was re-isolated from
`
` 7 the urine.
`
` 8
`
`
`
` 9 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`10 Q. Okay, and so for day 7 of the
`
`11 study, am I correct in saying that the percentage of
`
`12 phenylacetic acid that was recovered in the urine as
`
`13 PAGN amounted to 95 percent?
`
`14 A. No. No, that's not what it says.
`
`15 Q. And so...okay, so can you explain to
`
`16 me what the 95 number means at the bottom of table 2
`
`17 with respect to the subject that was dosed on day 7?
`
`18 A. It just refers to that being the
`
`19 amount of phenylacetic acid that was re-isolated.
`
`20 It doesn't say anything about the conjugation.
`
`21 Q. So when you say "the amount of
`
`22 phenylacetic acid that was re-isolated", what does
`
`23 that mean?
`
`24 A. It means the total amount of acid
`
`25 that was re-isolated from the patient's urine.
`
`
`Page 14 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 15
`
`
`
` 1 Q. So it's the total amount of
`
` 2 phenylacetic acid that was excreted in the urine by
`
` 3 the patient after the administration of phenylacetic
`
` 4 acid on day 7?
`
` 5 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
` 6
`
`
`
` 7 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
` 8 Q. Is that right?
`
` 9 A. That's correct. It's the total
`
`10 amount of phenylacetic acid.
`
`11 Q. And in what form would that
`
`12 phenylacetic acid have been recovered from the
`
`13 urine?
`
`14 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, foundation.
`
`15 THE DEPONENT: That's not described in
`
`16 Shiple.
`
`17
`
`
`
`18 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`19 Q. Okay. So it doesn't state whether
`
`20 or not the phenylacetic acid was recovered as its
`
`21 conjugation product, PAGN. Is that right?
`
`22 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form,
`
`23 foundation.
`
`24 THE DEPONENT: So that column doesn't
`
`25 describe glutamine.
`
`
`Page 15 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 16
`
`
`
` 1 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
` 2 Q. But it does state that it's the
`
` 3 amount of acid that was detoxicated, correct?
`
` 4 That's the heading of that column.
`
` 5 A. So detoxicated doesn't mean that it
`
` 6 was re-isolated in any particular form. It just
`
` 7 means it was the amount that the body processed and
`
` 8 was excreted. It doesn't refer to whether it's
`
` 9 conjugated or not.
`
`10 Q. Okay, and so what other forms could
`
`11 phenylacetic acid have appeared in in the urine,
`
`12 other than PAGN?
`
`13 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`14 THE DEPONENT: It could have appeared as
`
`15 the free compound, but I don't want to
`
`16 speculate on other things it could have
`
`17 appeared as. I'm only reading the
`
`18 manuscript. I'm not...I can only assess
`
`19 the data that was actually provided.
`
`20
`
`
`
`21 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`22 Q. Okay. So let me just make sure I
`
`23 understand that this...your explanation works with
`
`24 the text here. So if you turn to page 623 of
`
`25 Shiple, the end of the first paragraph, the last
`
`
`Page 16 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 17
`
`
`
` 1 three...the last four lines?
`
` 2 A. M'hm.
`
` 3 Q. It states:
`
` 4 "...Again, in the fourth sub-period (four
`
` 5 hours) of the seventh day after the
`
` 6 ingestion of 10 grams of phenylacetic acid,
`
` 7 52 percent of the entire nitrogen output of
`
` 8 the sub-period appeared in the urine as
`
` 9 glutamine nitrogen..."
`
`10 Correct?
`
`11 A. Yes.
`
`12 Q. Okay. Can you show me where that
`
`13 amount is noted in table 2?
`
`14 A. It's in table 2. It's period 7.
`
`15 It's the fourth segment of period 7. If you go
`
`16 across to the column that says:
`
`17 "...Percentage of total nitrogen [under
`
`18 which is 'Glutamine']..."
`
`19 You'll find the 52 percent there, which is what he
`
`20 describes on page 623.
`
`21 Q. "...Percentage of total nitrogen...
`
`22 glutamine..."
`
`23 Oh, I see. Okay. Okay, so prior to August of 2008,
`
`24 would a person of ordinary skill in the art have
`
`25 expected urea cycle disorder patients to exhibit
`
`
`Page 17 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 18
`
`
`
` 1 higher PAA to PAGN conversion than in healthy
`
` 2 subjects?
`
` 3 A. So that...it's possible that that
`
` 4 may have occurred, and I explained that in the
`
` 5 report in the section where I describe Shiple, and
`
` 6 that reason has to do with an underlying feature of
`
` 7 urea cycle defects, which is that the patients'
`
` 8 glutamine levels are higher than the glutamine
`
` 9 levels of healthy individuals.
`
`10 Q. Okay, and what would the higher
`
`11 glutamine level...what would that result in with
`
`12 respect to PAA to PAGN conversion?
`
`13 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`14 THE DEPONENT: So the chemical reaction
`
`15 for acylation is written on page 22, and it
`
`16 has three reactants which are...sorry, two
`
`17 reactants and one product, and glutamine is
`
`18 one of the reactants.
`
`19 Under the rules of equilibrium for
`
`20 this reaction, if the glutamine level is
`
`21 elevated, then the relative ratio between
`
`22 PAA and PAGN will also be elevated.
`
`23
`
`
`
`24 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`25 Q. Okay. In your declaration you
`
`
`Page 18 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 19
`
`
`
` 1 don't state how much higher the conversion a POSA
`
` 2 would expect for a urea cycle disorder patient
`
` 3 compared to a healthy subject, correct?
`
` 4 A. No, a POSA would understand it would
`
` 5 depend exactly on the glutamine. It's a defined
`
` 6 relationship.
`
` 7 Q. And would a POSA know how much
`
` 8 glutamine a UCD patient had in terms of availability
`
` 9 of the conjugation with PAA?
`
`10 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`11 THE DEPONENT: Yes, a person of ordinary
`
`12 skill in the art would be very familiar
`
`13 with the fact that glutamine was elevated
`
`14 in urea cycle defects.
`
`15
`
`
`
`16 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`17 Q. Okay, but again, you haven't
`
`18 expressed an opinion in your declaration with
`
`19 respect to how much more conversion a POSA would
`
`20 expect in a urea cycle disorder patient compared to
`
`21 a normal patient?
`
`22 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`23 THE DEPONENT: No, I think I did. I
`
`24 said because UCD patients typically have
`
`25 elevated glutamine levels.
`
`
`Page 19 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 20
`
`
`
` 1 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
` 2 Q. Okay, but you're not saying how
`
` 3 much higher the percentage conversion would be in a
`
` 4 UCD patient compared to a normal subject, correct?
`
` 5 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
` 6 THE DEPONENT: I didn't. I mean, I'm
`
` 7 well aware of the normal ranges of
`
` 8 glutamine and the ranges of glutamine that
`
` 9 are expected in UCD patients on treatment,
`
`10 as any POSA would be.
`
`11
`
`
`
`12 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`13 Q. Okay, well, I'm not asking about
`
`14 levels of glutamine. With respect to the percentage
`
`15 conversion of PAA to PAGN, that's what I'm referring
`
`16 to. So you, in your expert declaration, you do not
`
`17 provide an opinion concerning how much more
`
`18 conjugation of PAA to PAGN would be expected in a
`
`19 UCD patient compared to a healthy subject, correct?
`
`20 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`21 THE DEPONENT: I realistically provide
`
`22 no exact figure for that, but a person of
`
`23 ordinary skill in the art is well aware of
`
`24 the relationship of glutamine to the
`
`25 outcome of this reaction, and is also well
`
`
`Page 20 of 296
`
`Owner Ex. 2012
`Par Pharm. v. Horizon
`IPR2015-01117,-01127
`
`

`
` N. Sondheimer - 21
`
`
`
` 1 aware of the normal values for glutamine
`
` 2 and the values for glutamine that would be
`
` 3 expected in a UCD patient.
`
` 4
`
`
`
` 5 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
` 6 Q. So your answer is no, that you
`
` 7 haven't provided a specific number with respect to
`
` 8 how much higher PAA to PAGN conversion would be in a
`
` 9 UCD patient compared to a healthy subject, correct?
`
`10 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`11 THE DEPONENT: No, there is no exact
`
`12 number. It's merely that a person of
`
`13 ordinary skill in the art would know how to
`
`14 use that relationship in the determination
`
`15 of their patients.
`
`16
`
`
`
`17 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`18 Q. And so you mentioned that UCD
`
`19 patients have higher circulating glutamine than
`
`20 healthy subjects, correct?
`
`21 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, form.
`
`22 THE DEPONENT: Yes.
`
`23
`
`
`
`24 BY MS. SIMIC:
`
`25 Q. And is there any danger for UCD
`

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