throbber
Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415
`
` Inter Partes Review No: IPR2016-00710
`
` MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
` AND MERCK SHARP & DOHME
` CORP.,
` Petitioners,
`vs.
` GENENTECH, INC. AND CITY OF
` HOPE,
`
` Patent Owners.
`__________________________________/
`
` BILZIN SUMBERG PRICE & AXELROD,
` LLP
` 1450 BRICKELL AVENUE
` SUITE 3200
` MIAMI, FL 33131
` Friday, March 3, 2017
` 9:00 a.m. - 1:40 p.m.
`
` DEPOSITION OF REINER GENTZ, PH.D
`
` Taken on behalf of the Petitioners before
` Elizabeth Cordoba, RMR, CRR, FPR, Notary Public in
` and for the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to
` Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition in the above
` cause.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`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
`
`Mylan v. Genentech
`IPR2016-00710
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`A T T O R N E Y S F O R P E T I T I O N E R S M Y L A N :
` E R I C R . H U N T , E S Q .
` N E I L M C L A U G H L I N , P H . D .
` R A K O C Z Y M O L I N O M A Z Z O C H I S I W I K , L L P
` 6 W E S T H U B B A R D S T R E E T
` C H I C A G O I L 6 0 6 3 4
` 3 1 2 - 2 2 2 - 6 3 1 4
` E h u n t @ r m m s l e g a l . c o m
` N m c l a u g h l i n @ r m m s l e g a l . c o m
`
`A T T O R N E Y S F O R P E T I T I O N E R S M E R C K :
` M A T T H E W A . T R A U P M A N , E S Q .
` Q U I N N E M A N U E L
` 5 1 M A D I S O N A V E N U E
` 2 2 N D F L O O R
` N E W Y O R K N Y 1 0 0 1 0
` 2 1 2 - 8 4 9 - 7 3 2 2
` M a t t h e w t r a u p m a n @ q u i n n e m a n u e l . c o m
`
`A T T O R N E Y S F O R P A T E N T O W N E R S :
`
` A D A M R . B R A U S A , E S Q .
` D U R I E T A N G R I
` 2 1 7 L E I D E S D O R F F S T R E E T
` S A N F R A N C I S C O C A 9 4 1 1 1
` 4 1 5 - 3 6 2 - 6 6 6 6
` A b r a u s a @ d u r i e t a n g r i . c o m
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`1 8
`1 9
`2 0
`2 1
`2 2
`2 3
`2 4
`2 5
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 2
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS PAGE
`
` REINER GENTZ, PH.D
`
` Direct Examination by Mr. McLaughlin 5
`
` Cross-Examination by Mr. Brausa 152
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1079, 1982 Stueber Article, 77
`
` Exhibit 1080, 1984 Stueber Article, 82
`
` Exhibit 1081, US Patent Number 6,541,224, 143
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
` Exhibit 2021, 6
`
` Exhibit 1005, 51
`
` Exhibit 2079, 57
`
` Exhibit 2078, 75
`
` Exhibit 1002, 118
`
` Exhibit 2005, 133
`
` Exhibit 2070, 136
`
` Exhibit 2071, 138
`
` Exhibit 2067, 141
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 3
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`Thereupon,
`
` REINER GENTZ, PH.D,
`
`having been first duly sworn or affirmed and responded,
`
`"Yes," was examined and testified as follows:
`
` MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Good morning, Dr. Gentz. I
`
` just want to start by saying this is a deposition
`
` being taken in Inter-Partes Review Proceeding
`
` IPR2016-00710. It is an IPR between Mylan and Merck
`
` and Genentech and City of Hope.
`
` Do you understand that you are here to provide
`
` testimony?
`
` THE WITNESS: I understand.
`
` MR. MCLAUGHLIN: In this IPR?
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
` MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We will do counsel appearances
`
` now. I am Neil McLaughlin from the law firm Rakoczy
`
` Molino, on behalf of the Mylan defendant/petitioner.
`
` MR. HUNT: Eric Hunt, also from Rakoczy Molino
`
` Mazzochi Siwik, on behalf of the Mylan petitioner.
`
` MR. TRAUPMAN: Matt Traupman from Quinn
`
` Emanuel, representing petitioner Merck.
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Adam Brausa, from Durie Tangri, on
`
` behalf of respondents Genentech, City of Hope, as
`
` well as the witness Dr. Gentz.
`
` THE WITNESS: And I am Reiner Gentz, from Gentz
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 4
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 5
`
` Biotechnology Consultants.
`
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. So you were deposed last year in another IPR.
`
`So you probably heard these same instructions, but I will
`
`just go over them briefly again. Let's try not to talk
`
`over each other. I will ask questions. If you could wait
`
`until my question is finished and then provide your
`
`answer, that way we will have a clear record and the court
`
`reporter will have a clear time today.
`
` We will take breaks from time to time.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Usually about every hour. But any time you
`
`need a break, feel free to let us know. I just ask that
`
`you not take a break while a question is pending.
`
` A. I know.
`
` Q. Your counsel will object from time to time.
`
`You are still obligated to answer the question, unless of
`
`course it is a privilege objection and then you have been
`
`instructed not to answer.
`
` Do you understand these --
`
` A. I understand.
`
` Q. -- instructions? Okay.
`
` So since the deposition last year, have you
`
`been deposed in any other matter?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Have you been deposed in connection with a
`
`Page 6
`
`Cabilly patent?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Have you provided any other declarations or
`
`affidavits since that time?
`
` A. No, no declarations.
`
` Q. How would you define the word "gene"?
`
` A. A gene is, in code, something that can be
`
`either protein or an RNA.
`
` Q. Okay. So like an open reading frame?
`
` A. In most cases, if you talk about protein. But
`
`a gene can also be an RNA. It doesn't have to be a DNA in
`
`the new definitions. Originally, one said one gene, one
`
`protein and then it was modified. Today the RNA molecules
`
`include it too because they can have function too.
`
` Q. So it is something that is expressed, something
`
`that would be expressed?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
` (Previously marked Exhibit 2021, was referred
`
` to.)
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. I am going to hand you what has already been
`
`marked in this IPR as Exhibit 2021. Do you recognize this
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
`Page 7
`
`as your declaration submitted in IPR2016-00710?
`
` A. Yes, I recognize.
`
` Q. I understand you submitted one in a prior IPR
`
`dealing with Sanofi; is that correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Were you asked to review this before signing
`
`and dating again?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And did you review this before signing and
`
`dating?
`
` A. Yes, I reviewed.
`
` Q. Did you make any changes?
`
` A. In this declaration?
`
` Q. Correct.
`
` A. No, not in this declaration.
`
` Q. Since the previous one in this --
`
` A. Since the first one had some very minor words.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. It is 99 percent definitely.
`
` Q. Okay. Were you asked to make any changes?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you ask the attorneys to make any changes?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection. I am going to instruct
`
` the witness not -- you can answer that question.
`
` Actually, I am going to instruct you not to answer.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
` It is invading attorney-client privilege or work
`
`Page 8
`
` product.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Are you going to follow that instruction?
`
` A. Hmm?
`
` Q. Are you going to follow that instruction?
`
` A. I had no instruction.
`
` MR. BRAUSA: He is referring to the instruction
`
` I just gave you, not to answer on the basis of work
`
` product.
`
` THE WITNESS: If my lawyer says, then I follow.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Okay. I noticed in the declaration that was
`
`submitted in IPR2016-00710, I notice there was no CV
`
`attached to this declaration. Do you know why that is?
`
` A. My CV?
`
` Q. Right. There was no CV attached to this
`
`declaration.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Do you know why that is?
`
` A. No. I forgot. I gave you a CV in the other,
`
`Sanofi, I know there was a CV.
`
` Q. There was. There was. But there was not one
`
`in this case. Do you know why?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 8
`
`

`

` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you know, have there been any changes to
`
`Page 9
`
`your CV --
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. -- since the one that you --
`
` A. In the last year, no changes.
`
` Q. Okay. There is also not a list of materials
`
`considered attached to this declaration. Do you know why
`
`that is?
`
` A. No. I don't know. I have a list. I have got
`
`a list of what I considered.
`
` Q. So you understand, in the previous -- I will
`
`call it the Sanofi IPR, so you will understand I am
`
`referring to the previous IPR -- in that IPR, attached to
`
`your declaration was a list of materials that you had
`
`considered.
`
` Do you recall that?
`
` A. Okay. Yes.
`
` Q. There was not one attached to the declaration
`
`submitted in this IPR. Do you know why that is?
`
` A. No, I don't know.
`
` Q. There was no discussion with your attorneys
`
`regarding the attachment of the list of materials
`
`considered?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: And that is a "yes" or "no"
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 9
`
`

`

` question.
`
` THE WITNESS: Can you repeat? I didn't get it,
`
` really. Why there was no list attached? I don't
`
`Page 10
`
` know.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Okay. Were there any additional materials that
`
`you reviewed since signing --
`
` A. No. No.
`
` Q. If you would let me finish my question, I would
`
`appreciate it.
`
` A. Sorry.
`
` Q. Were there any additional materials that you
`
`considered since signing your declaration in the Sanofi
`
`IPR made in 2015 and when you submitted this declaration
`
`in December of last year?
`
` A. Not really. But I make some searches according
`
`to the protein of multimer, but we didn't include
`
`anything.
`
` Q. Did you say you did some searches?
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. What kind of searches?
`
` A. Searches related to antibodies in this time
`
`frame from 1981 to '83.
`
` Q. And were there additional materials from that
`
`search that you reviewed?
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 10
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
` A. No. It was not made in order to change
`
`anything in my declaration, no.
`
` Q. And who initially drafted your declaration?
`
`Was that you or the attorneys?
`
` A. Well, that is my declaration. I didn't type
`
`it, no.
`
` Q. Who chose the words that went into your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. They are my wordings.
`
` Q. I'm sorry. I didn't catch that.
`
` A. These are my words in this declaration.
`
` Q. Okay. Also, your hourly rate is not included
`
`in the declaration. What is your hourly rate for the
`
`consulting work that you are doing in this IPR?
`
` A. It is 400 per hour. And travelling, always the
`
`whole day.
`
` Q. Okay. I would like to ask you to turn to
`
`paragraph eight. And here you say, "I have also been
`
`asked to give my views on how a scientist with a PhD in
`
`molecular biology or a related discipline as of April 8,
`
`1983 would have interpreted the work done by my group at
`
`the Bujard lab, as disclosed in the publication Gentz, et
`
`al."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes, I see.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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. So you have been asked to give your opinions
`
`from the perspective of someone with a PhD as of 1983; is
`
`Page 12
`
`that correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. In 1983 you were still a student; isn't that
`
`correct?
`
` A. In 1983 I had finished my PhD in the fall. I
`
`had done the work and I was writing my thesis, to be
`
`exact.
`
` Q. So you weren't done with your PhD as of April
`
`of 1983, correct?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I said, I had done the work
`
` and I was writing.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. You had not been awarded your PhD as of April
`
`of 1983?
`
` A. I think I got it in the beginning of '84, the
`
`document.
`
` Q. Okay. And what did you do after that?
`
` A. After my PhD?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. Well, Hermann Bujard, he in '83 he accepted a
`
`position at Hoffman La Roche as head of biological
`
`research. And he had offered me and other people in the
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
`Page 13
`
`group if we would be interested to join him there.
`
`Because he was building up a completely new department.
`
`And originally I would have thought I would make a post
`
`doc directly. But I was very good and I was promised you
`
`can go after a few years somewhere and make a sabbatical,
`
`which I made later on.
`
` So I went to Roche. Bujard was the head of the
`
`pick unit, probably 150, 200 people. And some of his
`
`students during that time '84, '85 and '86, his students
`
`to finish the PhD. Because I had started in Heidelberg
`
`making the PhD, in the process I was leaving. So he kept
`
`his labs there, but the people that already had started
`
`went to Roche.
`
` Q. And how long were you at Roche?
`
` A. I left in '93.
`
` Q. Did you work with Dr. Bujard that entire time?
`
` A. Well, Bujard left after about three years. He
`
`was replaced by Michael Steinmetz, which you might know.
`
` Q. Okay. So Dr. Bujard left Roche in
`
`approximately 1987; is that correct?
`
` A. Yeah, must have been that time. To the best of
`
`my knowledge, it was '87, yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And what kind of work did you do at
`
`Roche?
`
` A. At Roche, initially -- let's exit. I had one
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 13
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`that they gave you about 30 percent of the time to work on
`
`what you want to do. No? So I worked on secretion
`
`mechanisms. Then our group supported various groups that
`
`Bujard either had set up or they were already existing.
`
`There was a malaria vaccine group. There was a TNF
`
`receptor group. We did cloning TNF receptors. There was
`
`a group working in mainly interferon gamma.
`
` So on one side I make new work, at Roche was
`
`all of the patents for prokaryotic and eukaryotic. And I
`
`supported groups making proteins or helping them
`
`screening, things like that. So it was on one side
`
`supporting the company and one side it was Bujard, he
`
`wanted to do exploratory and he chose to. He directed
`
`good people by doing this. His work was more important.
`
`He was actually the one I worked most with.
`
` Q. Okay. And was Bujard in that time, was he also
`
`interested in helping groups make proteins?
`
` A. Helping proteins? Well, he oversaw. We made
`
`proteins. Not like we made vaccine candidates, for
`
`example. I expressed soluble TNF receptors.
`
` Q. And so the secretion mechanisms that you
`
`referred to that you were working on at Roche, was that in
`
`relation to recombinant protein expression?
`
` A. Yes. We tried a little bit to understand,
`
`though I used the signal peptide, the synthetic one, and
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 14
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`tested various genes, prokaryotic and eukaryotic. So I
`
`had found by accident the mutant. Actually, the mutant is
`
`two publications because we understood more or less what
`
`happened during the secretion process.
`
` Q. Why were you interested in looking at secretion
`
`mechanisms?
`
` A. Well, I think it is obvious that we were
`
`interested if it is possible to make some protein in a
`
`soluble form.
`
` Q. So secretions --
`
` A. In E. Coli.
`
` Q. So the secretion mechanism would assist in
`
`maintaining the protein in soluble form?
`
` A. Could if you are lucky, yeah. The ones I tried
`
`were not.
`
` Q. So what would happen to those proteins?
`
` A. The protein stuck in the membrane.
`
` Q. Did you ever --
`
` A. Let's say you can probably not secrete
`
`cytoplasmic proteins, but even proteins in the CM gamma
`
`don't secrete any.
`
` Q. So you said they would get stuck in the
`
`membrane?
`
` A. They are very fast degraded, so they don't even
`
`appear in the cytoplasm. Not cytoplasm, the periplasm.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 15
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
` Q. Did you ever experience inclusion bodies?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: In general bacterium?
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. In the protein expression work that you were
`
`doing in E. Coli or bacteria.
`
` A. Lots, yes.
`
` Q. And in your experience what was it possible to
`
`do with those inclusion bodies?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection. Form.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Let me back up. Did you ever solubilize
`
`inclusion bodies in order to obtain or attempt to obtain
`
`active --
`
` A. Well, the issue is not the solubilization. I
`
`think you can solubilize all proteins in a strong
`
`detergent. You can use 6a molar urea, you can use
`
`guanidine. So solubilization is not the issue. The issue
`
`is that you can leave the protein in the correct form,
`
`which in most cases is not simple. Each protein is
`
`different.
`
` So I had proteins that refolded, that were not
`
`homogeneous. I would have the right forms and wrong forms
`
`and it was difficult to separate. And some simple
`
`proteins, I have a patent on the refolding of chemokines.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
`Page 17
`
`I could refold some chemokines and it would be the same as
`
`several ones because they are folded, pretty simple. If
`
`you are folding with many cysteines, the number of
`
`refolded proteins, they had heterogenetic increases if the
`
`number of cysteine residues increases, there are many
`
`cysteines. And if there are more than four already, you
`
`get some problems.
`
` Q. What kind of mechanisms did you use to refold
`
`proteins?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, to name one or two, the
`
` simplest one would be dilute, to make something, you
`
` dilute in one step, which works in rare cases.
`
` During the years we were involved by either
`
` protecting the cysteines, to slow down the problem.
`
` One side you make it fast and the other you make it
`
` slow and give time. People add glutathione,
`
` cysteines, whatever they do to give more time.
`
` In the last 15 years many, many different
`
` methodologies have been developed. But you cannot
`
` predict which one you have to use. You have to test
`
` it.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. And were methodologies for that known as of
`
`April 1983?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
`Page 18
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: All of them, of course not. I
`
` was more aware of the insulin gene that had been the
`
` alpha and the better genes that have been refolded.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Okay. As of April of 1983, which mechanisms
`
`were you aware of for the refolding of proteins?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: 1983? So that's more what was --
`
` because at that time I didn't purify any proteins
`
` myself. Bujard at that time was studying promoters
`
` in the first. It's mostly solubilizing in detergent,
`
` you know.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. There might be sulfonating or something like
`
`that.
`
` Q. Could you repeat the last part of what you said
`
`regarding the sulfonating?
`
` A. Yes. Either sulfonating or you protect the
`
`cysteines, and before solubilizing in a detergent.
`
` Q. Was denaturing using urea and guanidine known
`
`as of 1983?
`
` A. That, I don't recall now.
`
` Q. Did you ever use a technique employing urea and
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
`Page 19
`
`guanidine to denature proteins during your refolding step?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I did later on, when I was
`
` responsible at Hoffman La Roche for purifying, and
`
` later on at Human Genome Sciences we purified more
`
` than 200 proteins from E. Coli too. Initially, we
`
` tested different detergents there, different
`
` concentrations, especially.
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Okay. After Roche you went to Human Genome
`
`Sciences; is that correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And what did you do at Human Genome Sciences?
`
`Can I call it HGS?
`
` A. HGS.
`
` Q. What did you do at HGS?
`
` A. Well, at HGS I was responsible for a department
`
`that was called protein expression, later protein
`
`development, which included to make proteins in bacteria,
`
`insect cells. We did a lot using the baculovirus system.
`
`We used Escherichia and we used mammalian cells or CHO and
`
`NSO cells, especially for antibodies.
`
` I was also responsible for the boarding
`
`characteristic. I was responsible for formulation and
`
`stability. I was responsible for the clinical
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 19
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
`manufacturing. We brought very quickly, within the first
`
`two years, phase one clinical studies. Initially, we
`
`built small phase one suites, both mammalian and E. Coli.
`
`Later, we built the big pilot plant, it had already a
`
`2,000 liter mammalian bioreactor and 750 liter for E.
`
`Coli.
`
` I was for a while responsible for this plant.
`
`And later on also the supervisor reported to me of this
`
`plant. And the last two years I was involved in the
`
`design and construction of the commercial manufacturing
`
`plant, but I left in 2002, when this construction had
`
`already started.
`
` Q. You said some of this work was in relation to
`
`antibodies?
`
` A. Yeah. Human Genome Sciences developed several
`
`antibodies, as you may know, not that you have to prove,
`
`Benlysta in the area of lupus, the anthrax antibodies.
`
`This was a project that started in my department. So
`
`let's say a design of the target, everything, which
`
`protein to use, which area to use the antibody against.
`
`It was all made in my department, we made the protein.
`
` The screening later was made in collaboration
`
`with a group that was set up special for this monoclonal
`
`antibody group. It had nothing to do, but I tell you,
`
`the head of the laboratory who makes antibodies was 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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
`wife. So I know what an antibody is.
`
` Q. Okay. So how familiar would you say you are
`
`Page 21
`
`with antibody structure?
`
` A. In '83?
`
` Q. Sure. Let's start with '83. Were you familiar
`
`with antibody structure as of 1983?
`
` A. Well, everybody should know at least an
`
`antibody is a heterodynamic molecule, has heavy in the
`
`light chain, and that two of them form a tetramer, and so
`
`the simple things that you know. You know that the hinge
`
`region and the constant region and the variable region and
`
`you know the binding sites. Just I think a scientist as
`
`it is described here knew.
`
` Q. Okay. And are you familiar with what a Fab
`
`fragment?
`
` A. Fab fragment, I know that.
`
` Q. Are you familiar with what an Fv fragment is?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Going back to paragraph eight in your
`
`declaration, you reference "work done by my group at the
`
`Bujard lab."
`
` What do you mean when you are referencing your
`
`group?
`
` A. Where are you?
`
` Q. In the middle of paragraph eight, where it says
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 21
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`"the work done by my group."
`
` A. Well, that is mainly me and might be in some
`
`cases the technician that helped to set up some things.
`
` Q. Were there other PhD scientists in your group?
`
` A. At that time I had no PhDs.
`
` Q. So it was just technicians mainly that you were
`
`overseeing?
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. Okay. How many people were in Dr. Bujard's lab
`
`at the time that you were there?
`
` A. At the University of Heidelberg he had at the
`
`max ten. He had two post docs, he had two or three
`
`doctoral students, and then three, four master students.
`
`But a relatively small laboratory. There were two boxes
`
`with two and two and two and two, plus one left for
`
`electron microscope.
`
` Q. After Dr. Bujard left Roche in 1987, did you
`
`maintain contact with him?
`
` A. I had some contact with him, but not
`
`tremendous. He visited me at Human Genome Sciences, for
`
`example. I visited Bujard. I visited in Germany. We
`
`went for dinner. He invited everybody that was still in
`
`Heidelberg. So I talked to him a few times. He was very
`
`interested in what we were doing at Human Genome Sciences,
`
`due to the sequencing of trying to get all human expressed
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 22
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
`genes.
`
` Q. When was the last time you were in
`
`communication with Dr. Bujard?
`
` A. That's a long time. Ever since I am in Brazil,
`
`I have not talked with Bujard, I think. And he is
`
`85 years old now, I think, or 86.
`
` Q. Ever since you were in Brazil, you said?
`
` A. Yeah, I think.
`
` Q. Did you maintain contact with anybody else in
`
`the Bujard lab after leaving Dr. Bujard's lab in
`
`Heidelberg?
`
` A. Well, I mentioned that Bujard took several
`
`people. There was Dietrich Stueber, who was the most
`
`senior student. He was still at Roche when I left in
`
`1993. He was a friend of mine, you know. We lived quite
`
`a while one block apart from each other, no?
`
` Then he had students. If you look at the
`
`papers, we had added Ulrich Deuschle, Mick Camera, Ursula
`
`Peschke and Emanuel Peron. They came all to Roche and I
`
`even oversaw them until they finished the PhD thesis.
`
`Remember, I mentioned Bujard had barely any time to look
`
`for the students . That is why I am on many papers of the
`
`Bujard group from 1985, '86 and also '87.
`
` Q. And of all those people that you just listed,
`
`did you maintain contact with them after leaving Roche?
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 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
`
`Page 24
`
` A. On a more loose basis. I was more than once in
`
`Basel and I dropped in the company and said hello, you
`
`know. Yes, I did. And some people, remember me as a
`
`professor in Heidelberg to know. I have some people in
`
`Facebook, but we don't talk so much --
`
` Q. Sure.
`
` A. -- of science.
`
` Q. So at the end of paragraph eight, you reference
`
`the Bujard patent. That is US patent number 4495280. Do
`
`you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So if I refer to -- if I say "the Bujard
`
`patent" throughout the deposition today, you will know
`
`that I am referring to the 280 patent?
`
` A. Mm-hmm.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you ever discuss the 280 patent with any
`
`members of the Bujard lab?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you ever discuss the 280 patent with
`
`Dr. Bujard?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you draft any portions of the Bujard
`
`patent?
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 24
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. How much interaction did you have with Stanley
`
`Cohen prior to the filing of the Bujard patent?
`
` A. More loose contact. In a sense that he
`
`visited, I think it is two times that he visited
`
`Heidelberg, especially after we had the promoters cloned.
`
`And also Annie Chang, who also visited once the
`
`laboratories that we talked about.
`
` He was very pleased that we could do this. And
`
`at that time I had the idea I would make my post doc in
`
`his lab because Bujard told me once that there wouldn't be
`
`any problem to do it. And then he changed my direction.
`
` Q. So did you ever discuss the Bujard patent with
`
`Stanley Cohen?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you ever discuss the Bujard patent with
`
`Annie Chang?
`
` A. No. I did not discuss the patent with anybody.
`
` Q. What was Annie Chang's status at the time in
`
`Stanley Cohen's lab?
`
` MR. BRAUSA: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: She had, to my knowledge, no PhD.
`
` She was, everybody knew, a great scientist. So you
`
` cannot say she was a technician. I think she worked
`
` like a scientist without a PhD, I would assume.
`
`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
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Merck Ex. 1114, Pg. 25
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. I cannot know the title she had.
`
` Q. And did you have any interaction with Dr. Cohen
`
`or Annie Chang during the drafting --
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. -- of the application that would become the
`
`Bujard patent?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you ever have any interaction with a patent
`
`attorney that was drafting the Bujard patent?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you reach out to anyone, any of the listed
`
`inventors on the Bujard patent, during the process of
`
`drafting the declaration that you submitted in the Sanofi
`
`IPR?
`
` A. Could you please repeat? I didn't get it.
`
` Q. Sure. Did you reach out to anyone, any of the
`
`listed inventors on the Bujard patent, during the process
`
`of drafting the declaration that you submitted in the
`
`Sanofi IPR?
`
` A. No, I didn't talk with anybody.
`
` Q. Did you re

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