throbber
Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` -----------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` -----------------------------
` MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
` WOCKHARDT BIO AG,
` TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
` AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.,
` Petitioners,
` v.
` ASTRAZENECA AB,
` Patent Owner.
` -----------------------------
` Case: IPR2015-01340
` U.S. Patent No. RE44,186
` -----------------------------
`
` DEPOSITION OF ROBERT J. TANENBERG, MD, FACP
` Tuesday, December, 6, 2016
` Greenville, North Carolina
` 9:58 a.m.
`
` Reported in Stenotype by
` Sophie Brock, BA, RPR, CRR
`Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 60
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2222
`Mylan v. AstraZeneca
`IPR2015-01340
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`2
`
` Tuesday, December 6, 2016
` Greenville, North Carolina
` 9:58 a.m.
`
` T R A N S C R I P T of the Deposition of
`ROBERT J. TANENBERG, MD, FACP, held at the home of
`Dr. Tanenberg, 1866 Blue Banks Farm Road, Greenville,
`North Carolina 27834, on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, at
`9:58 a.m., pursuant to Notice, before Sophie Brock,
`Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
`Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the State of
`North Carolina.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER MYLAN
`PHARMACEUTICALS INC.:
` WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
` 1700 K Street, N.W.
` Fifth Floor
` Washington, D.C. 20006-3817
` 202-973-8800
`BY: RICHARD TORCZON, ESQ.
` rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER ASTRAZENECA AB:
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
` 571-203-2700
`BY: NICOLE A. CONLON, PH.D., ESQ.
` nicole.conlon@finnegan.com
` - and -
` ROBERT F. SHAFFER, ESQ.
` robert.shaffer@finnegan.com
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`4
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
` PAGE
`BY MS. CONLON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 47
`BY MR. TORCZON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
`
`* There were no exhibits marked *
`
` PREVIOUSLY-MARKED EXHIBITS REFERENCED
`NUMBER PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
`Exhibit 1042 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`Exhibit 2057 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
`Exhibit 2080 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`5
`
`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
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`Whereupon,
` ROBERT J. TANENBERG, MD, FACP,
` having first been duly sworn/affirmed,
` was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PATENT OWNER
`BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Tanenberg. My name is
`Nicole Conlon, and I represent AstraZeneca. I'll be
`asking some questions today.
` Can you please state your full name and
`residential address for the record, please.
` A. Sure. Robert J. Tanenberg. My address is
`1866 Blue Banks Farm Road, Greenville, North Carolina
`27834.
` Q. Okay. And do you understand that you are
`appearing in this case as an expert for the
`petitioners?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Okay. And have you been retained by Mylan?
` A. I guess so.
` Q. Were you retained by Wockhardt?
` A. Well, I was contacted by the firm --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- who represent Mylan.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`6
`
`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. And do you understand whether or not you are
`also retained by Wockhardt, Teva, Aurobindo, Amneal,
`or Sun?
` A. I don't have the name of the firm in front of
`me right now, but this gentleman represents that firm.
` Q. Okay. How did you come to be an expert in
`the case?
` A. I was contacted by Jad Mills, who found me
`and asked if I could do a case like this. And
`I agreed. How he had -- got my name, I do not know.
`It might have been through an expert witness
`organization is possible.
` Q. And do you know what firm Jad Mills is
`associated with?
` A. Wilson Samba, something like that. I don't
`have it in front of me.
` Q. Wilson Sonsini? Does that sound right?
` A. Something like that. He's out of Seattle,
`I guess.
` Q. Okay. And when were you first contacted
`about the possibility of serving as an expert in this
`case?
` A. I believe it was September, October possibly.
`I don't remember exactly.
` Q. September or October --
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`7
`
`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
`
` A. This year.
` Q. -- of this year?
` A. Yeah, this year. 2016. Right.
` Q. And you don't remember whether it was later
`in September or earlier October?
` A. I'd have to look it up. I have records.
`I didn't bring any records.
` Q. And how were you first contacted? Was it by
`email or phone?
` A. It was a phone call, yeah.
` Q. And what was your understanding that your
`assignment was at that time?
` A. My assignment was to review a statement made
`by another endocrinologist regarding class of drugs
`and a particular drug, saxagliptin, and to see if
`I agreed with that statement.
` Q. Okay. And did you understand that you'd be
`submitting an Expert Declaration in this case at that
`time?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And how many -- about how many
`conversations did you have before you determined
`whether or not you would submit an Expert Declaration
`in this case?
` A. Maybe two or three.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`8
`
`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. Okay. I just want to go back for one minute.
` Have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And so you're probably already
`familiar with the ground rules, but I just wanted to
`just go over them again.
` A. Sure.
` Q. It's important for the court reporter that we
`not talk at the same time. So I'll let you finish
`your answer and you'll let me finish my question.
` A. I understand.
` Q. And that the court reporter needs you to use
`words and not gestures. Understand?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Also, if you don't understand a question that
`I ask today, just please ask for a clarification.
` A. Sure.
` Q. I'm happy to do so.
` And we'll take regular breaks; but if you
`need more frequent breaks, just let me know and we'll
`accommodate that.
` A. Okay. That's great.
` Q. All right. What was your understanding of --
`as to the scope of your work in this case?
` MR. TORCZON: Objection. Form.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`9
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: My understanding was that this
`was a patent case involving saxagliptin, and to
`determine whether or not saxagliptin was a unique drug
`and its efficacy in type 2 diabetes vis-à-vis other
`drugs in its class.
`BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Okay. So you understand that this case
`concerns AstraZeneca's patent, the RE44,186 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And out of convenience, I'll refer to that as
`the '186 patent today.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you were asked to review the August 2,
`2016, Declaration of Dr. Lenhard --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- to provide opinions with respect to what
`Dr. Lenhard wrote in that Declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know -- well, you know that a trial
`took place between these parties in this proceeding
`concerning the '186 patent?
` A. I wasn't 100 percent sure of what had taken
`place so far.
` Q. Do you know that there was a trial that was
`held on September 19th to the 21st of this year
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`10
`
`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
`
`between the parties in this case?
` A. I don't think I was aware of that.
` Q. Do you recall whether you were contacted
`after September 19th to 21st, 2016, in this case?
` A. I have to look that up because I'm not sure
`exactly what date.
` Q. Okay. And you were aware that Dr. Lenhard
`served as AstraZeneca's expert clinician in that
`litigation?
` A. Correct. Yes. I read his -- I read his CV,
`and I read his -- his manuscript, if you will, his
`Declaration.
` Q. You read Dr. Lenhard's CV and Declaration in
`this proceeding; correct?
` A. Right. I thought it was a deposition.
`I didn't realize it was a court case; I thought it was
`just a deposition and his -- and his -- actually,
`I didn't think I read a deposition of him. I just
`read his Declaration that he wrote. That's all.
` Q. Okay. So you did not read the Declaration
`that Dr. Lenhard submitted in the parallel litigation;
`correct?
` A. I read one Declaration. And I can't tell you
`which one it was. I didn't know there was more than
`one.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`11
`
`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. Okay. So you haven't considered the
`deposition transcript of Dr. Lenhard from the
`litigation?
` A. I didn't read any depositions of his, no.
` Q. And you haven't considered the trial
`testimony of Dr. Lenhard that was submitted in the
`parallel litigation?
` A. Unh-unh. I only reviewed his Declaration and
`all the supporting documents of that Declaration.
` Q. Okay. So you didn't ask to see a transcript
`from the trial?
` A. I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure I knew
`there was a trial. I'm just trying to do my little
`thing here. That was it. I didn't really get the
`gestalt of the entire case. It was kind of little
`pieces I was given. "Please review this, and what do
`you think?" And that's sort of the way it went.
` Q. Are you aware that Mylan had retained another
`clinician, Dr. Gary Tobin, to respond to Dr. Lenhard's
`Declaration and testimony in the parallel litigation?
` MR. TORCZON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
`BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. So you were not given an opportunity to
`review Dr. Tobin's Declaration or trial testimony or
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`12
`
`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
`
`deposition testimony --
` A. No.
` Q. -- from the parallel litigation?
` A. No. No.
` Q. And so you didn't ask to see a transcript
`from Dr. Tobin's testimony at trial?
` A. Didn't even know he was testifying. Right.
` Q. Do you think, sitting here today, that would
`have been important or relevant to your analysis in
`connection with the opinions that you've rendered in
`this case, to review those materials of Dr. Lenhard
`and Dr. Tobin from the trial?
` A. I can't say. Not knowing what's in them, I
`can't say.
` Q. So going back to the time when you were
`initially contacted about the case, you understood
`from Mylan's attorneys that you'd be rendering an
`opinion that saxagliptin did not satisfy a long-felt
`need for an alternative therapy to treat type 2
`diabetes?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And you also understood that you'd be
`rendering an opinion that saxagliptin did not show any
`unexpected results?
` A. Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`13
`
`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. You also understood that you'd be rendering
`an opinion that there were no failures of others to
`come up with a DPP-4 inhibitor like saxagliptin?
` A. Well, I'm not sure how the question's
`phrased, but I assumed that I'd be talking about other
`drugs in this class.
` I was a little confused by the question.
` Q. Can you list which drugs in the class you
`considered?
` A. Yes. I considered vildagliptin, which is not
`in the US. I considered sitagliptin. I considered
`alogliptin. I considered linagliptin. And, of
`course, saxagliptin. So four of them are approved in
`the US. Linagliptin is not. The tradename is
`Tradjenta. The sitagliptin tradename is Januvia;
`Saxagliptin is Onglyza; and alogliptin is Nesina.
`Those are the four that are available in the US today.
` Q. So other than vildagliptin, sitagliptin,
`alogliptin, linagliptin, and saxagliptin, did you
`consider any other DPP-4 inhibitors in your analysis
`for this case?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you consider any other classes of drugs
`in your analysis for this case, other than DPP-4
`inhibitors?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`14
`
`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
`
` A. Yes, because Dr. Lenhard referred to other
`classes, like sulfonylureas and metformin. So, yes, I
`did consider all of the classes of drugs that he had
`referred to.
` Q. Did you consider any other classes other than
`the ones that Dr. Lenhard referred to in his
`Declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. From your initial meetings with your
`attorneys, did you understand that you would be
`rendering an opinion that was adverse to the patent
`covering saxagliptin?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And at the time when you were first contacted
`about this case, you received information about the
`issues; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. What information did you receive?
` A. I received Dr. Lenhard's paper, his CV, and
`several supporting documents, publications that he had
`used in his research.
` Q. Do you recall which supporting documents you
`received?
` A. I got quite a few. There may have been even
`50 or more. Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`15
`
`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. Okay. And what did you do next after you'd
`received those documents?
` A. I read them.
` Q. And did you read them prior to forming your
`opinions in the case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you do any additional literature or
`patent searching on your own for additional
`information?
` A. I didn't do patent searching. I did -- did
`check to see the dates when the drugs came on the
`market and were approved, but I didn't do any patent
`searching. That's not anything I know about.
` But I just looked at the different drugs,
`when they were released, and some other basic
`information, most of which is familiar to me in my
`work. I know the drugs fairly well.
` Q. Did you identify any other literature other
`than information about when the drugs were approved --
` A. Yeah.
` Q. -- on your own?
` A. I actually -- we had references to the
`literature. I gave them some literature, yes. And
`that's in my Declaration. There are some references
`in there.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`16
`
`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. Okay. We'll take a look at that in a minute.
` Other than the August 2nd, 2016, Declaration
`of Dr. Lenhard, have you reviewed any other
`Declarations that were submitted in this case?
` A. No.
` Q. So you didn't review the Declaration of
`Dr. Ann Weber?
` A. Never heard of her.
` Q. Okay. Dr. Christine Meyer?
` A. No.
` Q. Dr. David Rotella?
` A. No.
` Q. Ivan Hofmann?
` A. No.
` Q. Or Dr. DeForest McDuff?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you a copy of your
`Declaration --
` A. All right.
` Q. -- which is Exhibit 1041.
` (Document was handed to the witness.)
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Do you recognize this as a copy of your
`Declaration that was submitted in this case concerning
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`17
`
`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
`
`the '186 patent?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Okay. Please take a look at the last page,
`if you will. Can you confirm that you've signed this
`Declaration?
` A. Yes, that's my signature.
` Q. On page 25?
` A. Right. Yes.
` Q. And have you had an opportunity to review the
`Declaration since you've submitted it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you aware of any errors or inaccuracies?
`Anything you wish to correct?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Can you tell me the process of how
`your Declaration in this case was prepared?
` A. I submitted what I thought was the important
`information. And Mr. Mills took the information and
`elaborated on it to come up with this document.
` Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, and I couldn't
`come up with all the legal terms necessary for it.
`But the gist of what I gave him was in here. The
`references that I gave him are in here.
` Q. And I think you said that you'd submitted
`what you believed to be important information. What
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`18
`
`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
`
`was the information that you believed to be important?
` A. Right. I think we talked about it. I'm not
`sure if I actually submitted a sheet with all that,
`other than we just talked about the different
`information. I'm a little hazy on that right now.
`I've had surgery, and I'm not quite 100 percent sure
`exactly how that came about.
` But I do know that in our discussions, with
`the information I had, with the references that I gave
`him, this came to be. And I reviewed it, and
`I approved it.
` Q. Okay. Did anyone else work with you in
`preparing this Declaration other than Mr. Mills?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. And do you recall when you began
`actually working on the Declaration?
` A. Probably October, November is my guess. I'm
`not 100 percent sure. The signature date is -- let's
`see here. The signature date's November 7, so it was
`probably during October or in the very first week of
`November. That's the best I can recollect.
` Q. Okay. After the September trial dates;
`correct? It would be after September 19th to 21st
`that you began working on this Declaration?
` A. Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`19
`
`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. Approximately how much time did you spend
`preparing your Declaration?
` A. About 15 hours. That doesn't include review
`times and other things as well. So I probably put
`about -- maybe 24 hours in the case so far.
` Q. Okay. In your Declaration, you focused on
`Claims 25 and 26 of the '186 patent; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you focused on those claims because those
`were the ones that were also asserted at the trial; is
`that right?
` A. I can't say anything about the trial.
`I don't know anything about the trial.
` Q. Okay. Be fair to say that you did not focus
`on other claims in this patent, though; is that right?
` A. I only focused on the -- what was it? -- the
`'186, I think.
` Q. And you only focused on Claims 25 and 26 of
`the '186 patent?
` A. To be honest with you, I'm not sure what the
`25 and 26 represent. So I would hate to make a
`statement without knowing what they represented. If
`you had it in front of me, I could look at it and
`I could recollect it. But if you give me a number,
`I can't put the number together with what you're
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`20
`
`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
`
`saying.
` I did write (as read):
` "I understand the claims depict a
` chemical structure."
` If that's what you mean.
` "25 and 32 depict a chemical
` structure representing
` saxagliptin."
` And then:
` "Claim 32 recites a method for
` treating diabetes in a mammal by
` administering a pharmaceutical
` composition containing
` saxagliptin, and I am familiar
` with it."
` So that, I reviewed, yes. I wasn't just
`clear about the claim numbers.
` Q. Okay. So I'm looking at paragraph 13 of your
`report. And it's fair to say that you reviewed the
`claims -- all the claims contained in the '186 patent?
` A. Yes. I believe that's true.
` Q. And is your understanding that you focused on
`Claims 25 for the purpose of your analysis?
` A. I think I focused more on Claim 32. 25 was
`just the structure of the compound. I didn't really
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`21
`
`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
`
` have much to say about that. But it was the use of
` the drug in -- I mean, I'm a clinician primarily.
` I teach. I'm a professor at the university, and
` I teach, but I'm not a pharmacologist or pharmacist.
` So I was reviewing how this drug is used and
` their claims this is a drug for type 2 diabetes. That
` was -- I reviewed it from a clinical point of view.
` Q. Understood. So I imagine you focused on
` Claim 32 is -- your analysis was based on Claim 32 of
` the '186 patent?
` A. Yeah. Which is basically how the drug is
` used to treat type 2 diabetes, yes.
` Q. And so you did not focus on Claims 25 and 26
` of the '186 patent with respect to whether evidence of
` secondary considerations of nonobviousness was
` relevant to those claims?
` A. I really don't recall what Claim 26 is. If
` you could inform me, I could tell you if I looked at
` it. But I can't recall -- it's not in my head what
` Claim 26 was.
` Q. Just one second.
` I'm going to hand you a copy of the '186
` patent, which is marked Exhibit 1001.
`(Previously-marked Exhibit No. 1001 was referred to.)
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`22
`
`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
`
` BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. If you turn to page 4 -- sorry -- to
` Column 91.
` A. Column 91. I see 51, 63.
` MR. TORCZON: There (indicating).
` THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, I can see it now.
` BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Okay. And if you want to just take a minute
` and review Claims 25 and 26.
` A. Sure. Absolutely.
` So 25 and 26 just define the chemical
` structure of the compound.
` Q. Okay. So you did not focus on Claims 25 and
` 26, then, for the purpose of your analysis of
` secondary considerations of nonobviousness; correct?
` A. Yeah. I mean, I'm not a chemist, so I can't
` tell you what that structure -- anything specific
` about the structure by looking at it. I was more
` interested in -- in, you know, Number 32, for example,
` how it worked.
` And 25 and 26 just shows the compound, and
` it's a -- it's a salt of a hydrochloride. I mean,
` it's just -- it's chemistry. Again, I'm not a chemist
` or a pharmacist.
` But, on the other hand, under Number 23, I
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`23
`
`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
`
` did review that, understood that. That's clinical
` information.
` Q. Okay. So then the answer to my question that
` you did not focus on Claims 25 and 26 of the '186
` patent for the purpose of your analysis of secondary
` considerations, the answer to that question is that
` you did not focus on those claims?
` A. That's correct.
` MR. TORCZON: Objection. Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
` BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Okay. And you understand that the '186
` patent claims to saxagliptin -- Claims 25 and 26 --
` that those include the chemical and biological
` properties that are associated with saxagliptin?
` A. Yes, I understand that.
` Q. Okay. But you -- okay.
` In paragraph -- if we could go back to your
` Declaration.
` A. Sure.
` Q. Paragraph 16.
` A. All right.
` Q. You have listed some secondary
` considerations. And you're only opining on long-felt
` need, unexpected results, and failure of others;
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`24
`
`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
`
` correct?
` A. Could you repeat your question.
` Q. Sure. In paragraph 16, you've listed a
` number of secondary considerations?
` A. Right.
` Q. And for the opinions that you're providing in
` this case, you are only opining on long-felt need,
` unexpected results, and failure of others; correct?
` A. Yeah. I'm not talking about copying of
` invention or anything like that, no. Or praise of
` invention, no, I'm not opining on that at all. Those
` are obviously business- or patent-type issues I don't
` have any expertise on.
` Q. Okay. So, then, for the purpose of this
` case, you are only opining on the three secondary
` considerations that are listed here of long-felt need,
` failure of others, and unexpected results; correct?
` MR. TORCZON: Objection. Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
` BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Would you turn the page. The last sentence
` of that paragraph.
` A. Which page? 7?
` Q. Onto page 7.
` A. Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`25
`
`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. You stated (as read):
` "I am informed that secondary
` considerations are relevant where
` there is a nexus between the
` evidence and the claimed
` invention."
` A. What number are we on?
` Q. It's at the top of page 7. And it's --
` A. Oh, okay. I see.
` Q. -- the end of the paragraph 16.
` A. (Reading.)
` Yes, I read that.
` Q. Okay. And you don't dispute in this
` Declaration that a nexus exists with respect to
` Claims 25 and 26 of the '186 patent; correct?
` A. I don't dispute that, no.
` Q. Are you doing okay? Do you need a break?
` A. Another 15 minutes, maybe, I'll get up and
` walk around. Thank you.
` Q. Just let me know.
` I am going to hand you a copy of your CV.
` A. Do you want this back?
` Q. I'm handing you a copy of your CV, marked as
` Exhibit 1042.
`(Previously-marked Exhibit No. 1042 was referred to.)
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 25 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`26
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
` BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Is this an accurate copy of your CV?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you would turn to page 6, you have listed
` a number of research grants.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And these include clinical trials that you've
` been an investigator on?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And some of these were for trials of
` investigational drugs?
` A. Right.
` Q. On page 10 of your CV, at the very bottom,
` you were involved in a clinical trial with a compound
` CP-945,598 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes;
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that's also called -- is that compound
` also called otenabant?
` A. I can't remember. This was in 2007. I'd
` have to look it up.
` Q. Okay. And this compound was ultimately
` discontinued; correct?
` A. Yeah, it must be, because I don't recall the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`27
`
`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
`
` name of it at all, no.
` Q. Okay. So this compound CP-945,598 that was
` tested for the treatment of type 2 diabetes did not
` obtain FDA approval for that indication; is that
` right?
` MR. TORCZON: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Apparently not.
` BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Okay. And on page 11, you were involved in a
` clinical trial for a compound QR-333 for the treatment
` of symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And that compound was also
` discontinued; is that right?
` A. That's correct.
` MR. TORCZON: Objection. Scope.
` THE WITNESS: That's correct.
` BY MS. CONLON:
` Q. Okay. So it -- and it did not obtain FDA
` approval?
` A. No.
` Q. Back on page 10 -- I guess, before we go
` there, from your own experience, then, you would agree
` that not any drug that goes into chemical testing will
` succeed in becoming an FDA-approved drug; correct?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 27 of 60
`
`

`
`Case: IPR2015-01340
`Tanenberg, M.D., FACP, Robert J.
`
`December 6, 2016
`
`28
`
`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
`
` A. That's correct. In fact, many -- the
` majority of them don't.
` Q. And, at least in some cases, if not many, a
` drug that enters clinical testing will fail for safety
` or efficacy reasons?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. On page 10 of your CV, you were involved in a
` clinical trial for saxagliptin; is that correct?
` A. Yes, I was.
` Q. Okay. And that was a Phase III clinical
` trial demonstrating the safety and efficacy of
` saxagliptin as a monotherapy --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- in patients for type 2 diabetes?

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