`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.
`
`Alderson Reporting
`1-800-367-3376
`info@aldersonreporting.com
` http://www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Reference Number: 67630
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 1/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` - - -
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, :
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., :
`
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICALS :
`
`INC., AND ALEMBIC :
`
`PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., :
`
` Petitioners, : Case No. IPR2016-00204
`
` vs. : Patent No. RE 38,551
`
`RESEARCH CORPORATION :
`
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., :
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
` - - -
`
` Deposition of KATHRYN A. DAVIS, M.D.,
`
` held at the offices of BAKER HOSTETLER, 2929
`
` Arch Street, Cira Center, Philadelphia,
`
` Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, December 14, 2016,
`
` beginning at approximately 8:32 a.m., the
`
` proceedings being recorded stenographically by
`
` Gail Inghram Verbano, Registered Diplomate
`
` Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter,
`
` Certified Shorthand Reporter-CA (No. 8635), and
`
` transcribed under her direction.
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 2/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`On behalf of Petitioner:
`
` MATTHEW J. DOWD, ESQ.
`
` mjdowd@dowdpllc.com
`
` DOWD PLLC
`
` 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`
` Suite 1025
`
` WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
`
`On behalf of Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals:
`
`(Telephonically appearing)
`
` JAD MILLS, ESQ.
`
` jmills@wsgr.com
`
` WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
` 701 5th Ave., Suite 5100
`
` Seattle, Washington 98104
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
` ANDREA G. REISTER, ESQ.
`
` areister@cov.com
`
` PRISCILLA G. DODSON, ESQ.
`
` pdodson@cov.com
`
` COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
`
` One City Center, 850 10th Street NW
`
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 3/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 3
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION OF: PAGE
`
`KATHRYN A. DAVIS, M.D.
`
` By Ms. Reister 6
`
` By Mr. Dowd 216
`
` By Ms. Reister 259
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`DAVIS PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1: Letter from the Food and Drug 57
`
` Administration to UCB, 3/19/2007
`
`Exhibit 2: Article "Efficacy and 63
`
` Tolerability of Lacosamide in the
`
` Treatment of Children with
`
` Refractory Generalized Epilepsy"
`
`Exhibit 3: Letter from Russell Katz of the 66
`
` FDA, 6/21/2005
`
`Exhibit 4: Letter to the editor appearing in 87
`
` the Journal of Clinical
`
` Gastroenterology from August of
`
` 2014
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 4/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 4
`
` E X H I B I T S (continued)
`
`DAVIS PAGE
`
`Exhibit 5: Abstract entitled "Control of 162
`
` Seizures in Different Stages of
`
` Partial Epilepsy: LACO-EXP, a
`
` Spanish Retrospective Study of
`
` Lacosamide"
`
`Exhibit 6: Letter regarding nonepileptic 186
`
` hallucinations in use of
`
` levetiracetam from
`
` November/December 2007
`
`Exhibit 7: Article entitled "Discontinuation 188
`
` of Levetiracetam Because of
`
` Behavioral Side Effects, a
`
` Case-Controlled Study"
`
`Exhibit 8: Article entitled "Acute 191
`
` Pancreatitis and Elevated Liver
`
` Transaminases After Rapid
`
` Titration of Oral Levetiracetam"
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 5/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
`PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS REFERENCED: PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1048 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
`
`Exhibit 1070 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
`
`Exhibit 1072 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
`
`Exhibit 1073 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
`
`Exhibit 1079 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
`
`Exhibit 1092 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
`
`Exhibit 1099 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
`
`Exhibit 1100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
`
`Exhibit 1101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
`
`Exhibit 1102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
`
`Exhibit 1103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
`
`Exhibit 1105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
`
`Exhibit 1106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
`
`Exhibit 1123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
`
`Exhibit 1133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
`
`Exhibit 1135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
`
`Exhibit 1141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
`
`Exhibit 1154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
`
`Exhibit 2078 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
`
`Exhibit 2122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
`
`INSTRUCTION NOT TO ANSWER:
`
`PAGE LINE
`
` 31 17
`
` 32 10
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 6/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 6
`
` Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
`
` Tuesday, December 14, 2016; 8:32 a.m.
`
` - - -
`
` KATHRYN A. DAVIS, M.D., having first
`
` been duly sworn according to law, was examined
`
` and testified as follows:
`
` - - -
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Davis.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Thank you for being here. As you know
`
` from the court reporter, you're under oath
`
` today, and is there anything that might
`
` interfere with your ability to testify
`
` truthfully and accurately today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Are you on any medications today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Any illness?
`
` A. No. A minor cold.
`
` Q. But nothing that would interfere with
`
` your ability to testify truthfully and
`
` accurately?
`
` A. No, there's nothing.
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 7/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
` Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
`
`Page 7
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And how many times?
`
` A. Approximately four.
`
` Q. And of those four times that you were
`
` deposed, were any of those in relation to a
`
` patent proceeding?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. The four times that you were deposed
`
` before, were those related to a medical
`
` proceeding?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Could you tell me about each of those,
`
` please.
`
` A. To my recollection, the first one was
`
` a case that was then subsequently dropped from
`
` my residency that I was asked to -- I was
`
` deposed regarding that case. I don't know that
`
` I actually am allowed to talk about details
`
` regarding it.
`
` Second one was, I believe, related to
`
` an independent medical evaluation I had done on
`
` a patient. Another one was also another
`
` independent medical evaluation.
`
` Might have only been three. I'm not
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 8/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` entirely sure. I haven't looked at my records
`
` to clarify the exact number.
`
` Q. And the two that you spoke about that
`
` were independent medical evaluations,
`
` approximately when did those occur?
`
` MR. DOWD: I'll object based on
`
` relevance and the scope.
`
` You can answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Approximately --
`
` one was within the last six months. And then
`
` the other one was maybe a year and a half ago.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And with respect to any of the three
`
` proceedings in which you recall being deposed,
`
` did you testify at trial?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. With respect to the three proceedings
`
` in which you were deposed, did any of those
`
` proceedings involve epilepsy?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection; relevance
`
` and scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, they did.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And how many of those three
`
` proceedings involved epilepsy?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 9/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: Two.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And of the two that involved epilepsy,
`
` did they also involve the particular drug that
`
` was administered to the patient?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So for the two that involved epilepsy,
`
` did any of them involve Vimpat?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection; relevance,
`
` scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: Not to my
`
` recollection.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. With respect to the two that involved
`
` epilepsy, did any of them involve Keppra?
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: The most recent one
`
` definitely did. I don't recall with the other
`
` one. However, I would say that Keppra -- that
`
` wasn't the question at hand. It was just that
`
` I recall that the patient was -- received
`
` Keppra at some time during her treatment time
`
` course.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 10/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` Q. But the issue at hand in that most
`
` recent proceeding where the patient was being
`
` administered Keppra was different than an issue
`
` relating to Keppra itself?
`
` MR. DOWD: Object to that based
`
` on the scope of the question, the relevancy of
`
` the question, and to this entire line of
`
` questioning. I'll caution Dr. Davis to not
`
` provide any answers that might provide
`
` confidential information or information that
`
` cannot be disclosed publicly.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think it's safe
`
` to say that the question at hand was regarding
`
` a traumatic brain injury.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And for the two of the proceedings in
`
` which you were deposed that involved epilepsy,
`
` was the issue at hand in any of those related
`
` to the particular antiepileptic drug that was
`
` being administered?
`
` A. No.
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Dr. Davis, you've been deposed before.
`
` I'm sure you're familiar with the format. I'd
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 11/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` just like to set forth the ground rules, just
`
` so that we're clear today.
`
` This is a question and answer format,
`
` and your attorney may object, but you still
`
` have to answer the question.
`
` Do you understand the ground rules?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. If you need a break, please let me
`
` know and we'll try to take one at the next
`
` available moment that we can. Okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. What did you do to prepare for your
`
` deposition today?
`
` A. So I reviewed, I believe, all the
`
` documents that were disclosed, including Carl
`
` Bazil's declaration, and the literature and
`
` other documents that were provided.
`
` My declaration was completed many
`
` weeks ago, so in the last few days I reread
`
` several of those documents to prepare.
`
` Q. In your answer you made reference to
`
` "literature and other documents that were
`
` provided."
`
` Can you tell me what those were?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection; form of the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 12/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` question.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I believe it's
`
` all of the -- forgive me for maybe using the
`
` wrong word, but the exhibits. I had to cheat.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. That's quite all right.
`
` And you've made reference to a
`
` document that's in front of you. Can you tell
`
` me what that document is, please?
`
` A. The document in front of me is the
`
` declaration that I made in support of/reply
`
` for -- in this case. I don't know if -- do you
`
` want me to read out the entire front page?
`
` Q. If you could just tell me what the
`
` exhibit number is in the lower right-hand
`
` corner, please.
`
` A. It's 1087.
`
` Q. And that document that you have in
`
` front of you, is that a clean copy of your
`
` declaration, Exhibit 1087?
`
` A. Yes, it is.
`
` MS. REISTER: Mr. Dowd, is that a
`
` true and correct and clean copy of
`
` Exhibit 1087?
`
` MR. DOWD: To the best that it's
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 13/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` been printed out, yes.
`
` MS. REISTER: May I have a look?
`
` MR. DOWD: Please.
`
` MS. REISTER: Thank you. Here
`
` you go.
`
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. So in preparing for your deposition,
`
` you reviewed your declaration, Exhibit 1087,
`
` and the exhibits that were cited in your
`
` declaration; is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct. In addition, I
`
` reviewed Dr. Bazil's declaration.
`
` Q. Were there any other documents that
`
` you reviewed in preparation for your
`
` deposition?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the form
`
` of the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: Not directly
`
` related, but I just went to the American
`
` Epilepsy Society meeting, so I updated myself
`
` as I would with -- in my standard clinical
`
` practice regarding different epilepsy
`
` medications, and there were some more recent
`
` abstracts in that setting.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 14/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` So that was not in direct review
`
` for today, but that was some of that knowledge
`
` that's not present in my declaration.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And the more recent abstracts in the
`
` setting of the American Epilepsy Society
`
` meeting, do you recall what the subject matter
`
` of those abstracts was?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the form
`
` of the question and objection to the relevancy
`
` of the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: So at American
`
` Epilepsy Society there are thousands of
`
` abstracts, and they are only abstracts, so
`
` they're not published and sometimes the data
`
` that's presented doesn't hold true once it's
`
` looked at in more depth.
`
` But I did -- I can recall
`
` reviewing -- I was particularly interested in
`
` some cannabidiol abstracts because that's a
`
` very hot topic in epilepsy that my patients ask
`
` a lot about.
`
` There were some lacosamide
`
` abstracts as well, and I reviewed some of
`
` those.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 15/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` I personally had about five
`
` abstracts, so I went and saw a bunch of -- just
`
` kind of strolled around and looked at what
`
` other investigators were doing throughout the
`
` country.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And with respect to the lacosamide
`
` abstracts, can you tell me what the subject
`
` matter was of those?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the form
`
` of the question and the scope of the question
`
` and the relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: There was
`
` particularly one abstract that I thought was
`
` interesting, didn't have very much information,
`
` honestly, on it regarding lacosamide and
`
` pregnancy registry data. What I found really
`
` interesting about that abstract is that a
`
` very -- the extremely low rate of live births
`
` that were reported, so I think that there's a
`
` lot more that I need to know in order to
`
` interpret that particular abstract.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And do you recall any abstracts at
`
` this meeting that involved Keppra?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 16/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` A. I didn't particularly see any. There
`
` probably were.
`
` Q. In addition to reviewing documents in
`
` preparation for your deposition today, did you
`
` do anything else?
`
` MR. DOWD: Object to the form of
`
` the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: I've discussed --
`
` had a discussion with Mr. Dowd on the telephone
`
` regarding just kind of what would happen today
`
` and where to go, things like this.
`
` Nothing else in particular.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And when did the discussion with
`
` Mr. Dowd take place?
`
` A. Monday.
`
` Q. Approximately how long was that?
`
` A. 45 minutes.
`
` Q. Did you meet with Mr. Dowd in person
`
` prior to your deposition today?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the
`
` relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: No, we just met
`
` this morning.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 17/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` Q. Did you speak with anyone else in
`
` preparation for your deposition today?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection. I'll
`
` object to the form of the question, the
`
` relevancy of the question. I'll caution the
`
` witness, to the extent answering the question,
`
` not to divulge any confidential or privileged
`
` information.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I was on one
`
` conference call with several of the other
`
` lawyers that I believe are on -- are involved
`
` right now; and I don't know their names.
`
` But that's my -- or I don't
`
` recall their names. That's the only other
`
` discussion.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And when did that discussion take
`
` place?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection. Same
`
` objections as before.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall the
`
` specific date. It was in later November, prior
`
` to my finalizing my declaration. And I could
`
` find out the date if you needed it, because I
`
` remember where I was. I was at a conference in
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 18/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` San Diego. It was prior to Thanksgiving.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And approximately how long was that
`
` telephone call?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the form
`
` of the question and the relevancy of the
`
` question. And the same objection with respect
`
` to not disclosing or divulging confidential and
`
` privileged information.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall the
`
` exact length. Approximately a half hour.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. And to the best of your recollection,
`
` Mr. Dowd was on that phone call; correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And to the best of your recollection,
`
` was counsel for Mylan on that phone call?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the scope
`
` of the question and the relevancy of the
`
` question.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't know.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Was counsel for Alembic on that phone
`
` call?
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 19/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` THE WITNESS: I also don't know.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Counsel for Breckenridge, were they on
`
` that phone call?
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I also don't know.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Is it fair to say that there were
`
` other lawyers in addition to Mr. Dowd on that
`
` phone call; is that correct?
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
` Again, caution the witness, to the extent
`
` answering the question, not to divulge
`
` privileged or confidential information.
`
` THE WITNESS: That is correct. I
`
` just am not good with names, and I don't know
`
` who else was on the call.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. In preparing for your deposition
`
` today, did you speak with anyone other than the
`
` attorneys?
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: Not in particular.
`
` My colleagues -- several of my colleagues knew
`
` that I was coming here today because I'm not
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 20/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` going to be at work; but other than that, I
`
` didn't have any in-depth conversations.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. So did you discuss the substance of
`
` the deposition with your colleagues?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the form
`
` of the question and the relevancy of the
`
` question.
`
` THE WITNESS: They only knew that
`
` it was regarding lacosamide and the patent --
`
` and it was a patent issue. Beyond that,
`
` nothing else specifically.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. You've been retained in this
`
` proceeding on behalf of Argentum
`
` Pharmaceuticals; is that correct?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the form
`
` of the question and the foundation and the
`
` relevancy of the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: That is correct, as
`
` stated on this front page that we reviewed.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Could you look at Paragraph 2 of your
`
` declaration, please, Dr. Davis. And do you see
`
` in the first sentence it says, "I have been
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 21/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` retained as an expert witness on behalf of
`
` Argentum Pharmaceuticals, LLC"?
`
` A. I see that.
`
` Q. And you understand that Mylan,
`
` Breckenridge and Alembic are now joined as
`
` petitioners in this proceeding; is that
`
` correct?
`
` MR. DOWD: Objection to the form
`
` of the question, the scope of the question, the
`
` relevancy; the fact that it calls for a legal
`
` conclusion; and the lack of foundation for the
`
` question.
`
` THE WITNESS: That is my
`
` understanding, but I am not a lawyer and I
`
` don't understand the specifics of it.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Have you been retained by any of
`
` Mylan, Breckenridge or Alembic in this
`
` proceeding?
`
` MR. DOWD: I'll object to the
`
` form of the question, the relevancy of the
`
` question, foundation of the question and
`
` calling for a legal conclusion.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't know how to
`
` answer that question, because I don't know the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 22/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` underlying law surrounding it. I was asked
`
` to -- I just was asked to make this
`
` declaration. I don't understand kind of the
`
` companies behind it.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. But you do understand, as you state in
`
` Paragraph 2, that you've been retained as an
`
` expert witness on behalf of Argentum
`
` Pharmaceuticals; correct?
`
` MR. DOWD: I'll object to the
`
` question, lacking foundation, being asked and
`
` answered and seeking a legal conclusion and the
`
` relevancy of the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I said prior,
`
` that was my understanding and I don't
`
` understand the legal specifics surrounding
`
` these questions regarding the various different
`
` companies.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. So sitting here today, you don't have
`
` an understanding one way or the other whether
`
` you've been retained on behalf of Mylan,
`
` Breckenridge and Alembic; is that correct?
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections; and
`
` asked and answered.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 23/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
` THE WITNESS: I believe I already
`
` answered that question. I don't know the legal
`
` language that's appropriate to answer these
`
`Page 23
`
` kind of questions.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Prior to the present proceeding, had
`
` you ever heard of Argentum Pharmaceuticals?
`
` MR. DOWD: I'll object to the
`
` relevancy of the question, lack of foundation
`
` for the question, the fact the question goes
`
` beyond the scope of the witness' testimony and
`
` the form of the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: I had not heard of
`
` Argentum prior, to my knowledge.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Have you ever collaborated with anyone
`
` at Mylan Pharmaceuticals?
`
` MR. DOWD: I'll object to the
`
` form of the question, the relevancy of the
`
` question, and the lack of foundation for the
`
` question. Instruct the witness not to answer
`
` to the extent that it elicits or attempts to
`
` elicit confidential and/or privileged
`
` information.
`
` THE WITNESS: Not to my
`
`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
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 24/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` knowledge. I would say that Penn -- the Penn
`
` Epilepsy Center has a very active clinical
`
` trials division, of which I am a coinvestigator
`
` on some of those trials but not directly
`
` involved; and I frequently don't know the full
`
` scope of all of the trials.
`
` So to the best of my knowledge,
`
` no.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Have you ever collaborated with anyone
`
` at Breckenridge Pharmaceutical?
`
` MR. DOWD: I'll object to the
`
` question based on the form of the question,
`
` lack of foundation for the question, the lack
`
` of relevancy of the question; and instruct the
`
` witness not to answer to the extent it elicits
`
` or attempts to elicit confidential and or
`
` privileged information.
`
` THE WITNESS: My answer would be
`
` the same as for Argentum, which I can repeat if
`
` you'd like.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. I believe the answer that you just
`
` gave was with respect to Mylan Pharmaceutical.
`
` A. Oh, you're correct. I'm sorry.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 25/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` It's the same answer. I don't know of
`
` any time that I've collaborated with that
`
` pharmaceutical company; but the caveat is that
`
` there's a very active clinical trials division
`
` within the epilepsy center, of which, because
`
` I'm an attending I am listed as a
`
` coinvestigator. But I don't have direct
`
` contact or input into those studies.
`
` Q. And would your answer be the same for
`
` Alembic Pharmaceuticals?
`
` MR. DOWD: Well, repeat my
`
` objections to the previously stated question.
`
` THE WITNESS: So Lundbeck is the
`
` same Lundbeck that makes clobazam; is that
`
` correct?
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. My question refers -- if you look at
`
` the first page of your declaration, my question
`
` now is --
`
` A. Oh, Alembic, okay. Sorry.
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` MR. DOWD: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I apologize. I
`
` misheard the name. My answer would be the
`
` same.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Argentum Pharm. v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR2016-00204
`RCT EX. 2195 - 26/265
`
`
`
`Kathryn A. Davis, M.D.
`
`December 14, 2016
`
`Philadelphia, PA
`
`Page 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
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Are you aware of any clinical trials
`
` at the Penn Epilepsy Center that are currently
`
` being conducted by Mylan?
`
` MR. DOWD: Object to the question
`
` as lacking foundation, the scope of the
`
` question, and the relevancy of the question;
`
` and, again to the extent that the question
`
` elicits confidential and/or privileged
`
` information, instruct the witness not to
`
` answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: No, I am not aware
`
` of any clinical trials ongoing.
`
` BY MS. REISTER:
`
` Q. Are you aware of any clinical trials
`
` at the Penn Epilepsy Center that are currently
`
` being conducted by Breckenridge Pharmaceutical?
`
` MR. DOWD: I object to the
`
` question as lacking foundation, going beyond
`
` the scope of direct, the relevancy of the
`
` question; and, again, to the extent the
`
` question elicits or attempts to elicit
`
` confidential