4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 1
`
` U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` Washington, D.C.
`
`-----------------------------x
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS, :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` vs. : IPR2017-00807
` :
`CIPLA LTD, :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`-----------------------------x
`
` Washington, D.C.
` Wednesday, April 4, 2018
`EXAMINATION of:
` JOHN C. STAINES, JR.,
`the witness, was called for examination by counsel
`for the Patent Owner, pursuant to notice,
`commencing at 8:50 a.m., at the law offices of
`Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street, NW,
`Washington, D.C. 20007, before Dawn A. Jaques,
`CSR, CLR, and Notary Public in and for the
`District of Columbia.
`
`______________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`1
`
`CIP2180
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals v. Cipla Ltd.
`IPR2017-00807
`
`
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 1
`
` U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` Washington, D.C.
`
`-----------------------------x
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS, :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` vs. : IPR2017-00807
` :
`CIPLA LTD, :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`-----------------------------x
`
` Washington, D.C.
` Wednesday, April 4, 2018
`EXAMINATION of:
` JOHN C. STAINES, JR.,
`the witness, was called for examination by counsel
`for the Patent Owner, pursuant to notice,
`commencing at 8:50 a.m., at the law offices of
`Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street, NW,
`Washington, D.C. 20007, before Dawn A. Jaques,
`CSR, CLR, and Notary Public in and for the
`District of Columbia.
`
`______________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`1
`
`CIP2180
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals v. Cipla Ltd.
`IPR2017-00807
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`APPEARANCES:
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
` DENNIES VARUGHESE, ESQ.
` ADAM C. LaROCK, ESQ.
` Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 600
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` PHONE: (202) 772-8805 (Mr. Varughese)
` (202) 772-8794 (Mr. LaRock)
` FAX: (202) 371-2540
` EMAIL: dvarughe@sternekessler.com
` alarock@skgf.com
`
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
` ANDREW R. CHESLOCK, ESQ.
` Foley & Lardner LLP
` Washington Harbor
` 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 600
` Washington, D.C. 20007-5109
` PHONE: (202) 945-6009
` FAX: (202) 672-5399
` EMAIL: acheslock@foley.com
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`2
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 3
`
` I-N-D-E-X
`WITNESS: PAGE:
`JOHN C. STAINES, JR.
` Cross-Examination by Mr. Varughese 5
` Redirect Examination by Mr. Cheslock 91
` Phone call to PTAB ............... 96
` Resume Redirect Examination
` by Mr. Cheslock ........... 118
`
` Recross Examination by Mr. LaRock 121
`
` Further Redirect Examination
` by Mr. Cheslock ............... 166
`
` E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S
`EXHIBIT NUMBER: PAGE:
`Exhibit 1171 Errata sheet to declaration
` of John C. Staines ....... 118
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`3
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
` INDEX (Continued)
`
`Page 4
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS REFERRED TO:
` EXHIBIT NUMBER: PAGE:
`
` CIP2053 .... 37
` CIP2064 .... 34
` CIP2074 .... 33
` CIP2079 .... 40
` CIP2080 .... 42
` CIP2149 .... 33
`
` 1085 ....... 64
` 1136 ....... 152
` 1137 ....... 152
` 1140 ....... 14
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`4
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`Whereupon,
` JOHN C. STAINES, JR.,
` was called as a witness, after having been
` first duly sworn by the Notary Public, was
` examined and testified as follows:
`CROSS EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PATENT OWNER
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q Good morning, Mr. Staines.
` How are you?
` A Good. Good morning.
` Q Is it okay if I refer to you as
`Mr. Staines?
` A That's fine, yeah.
` Q So I know you just stated your full
`name for the record. Do you understand that
`you're here today because you submitted a
`declaration in an inter partes review proceeding?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. And you submitted a declaration
`on behalf of Petitioner, Argentum?
` A Yes.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`5
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 6
` Q And you understand that you're under
`oath and you're answering questions under oath,
`correct?
` A I understand that.
` Q Any reason, ailment or medications,
`anything that would preclude you from testifying
`truthfully and accurately today to the best of
`your ability?
` A No.
` Q Okay. How many times have you been
`deposed before?
` A Twice.
` Q Okay. Do you remember in what type of
`proceeding?
` A Yes. One was a review like this, and
`the other one was an antitrust damages case.
` Q Okay. That review, when you say "like
`this," it was another inter partes review?
` A Yes.
` Q Involving a patent?
` A Yes.
` Q Now, did you testify in that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`6
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`proceeding on behalf of the Petitioner or the
`Patent Owner?
` A So I didn't testify per se, but I
`submitted an affidavit and did testify at
`deposition, and that was -- I was retained by the
`Petitioner.
` Q Okay, great. If I were to ask you
`approximately how many times you've submitted
`either a declaration like the one in this
`proceeding or an expert report in a district court
`case involving a pharmaceutical drug,
`approximately how many times would that have been?
` A It's probably indicated on my CV
`that's attached. As I recall, there's probably
`been -- probably been four to five.
` Q Okay. And in those cases, do you
`recall if you submitted your declaration or
`reports on behalf of the patent challenger or the
`Patent Owner?
` A Okay, so those -- let me go back to
`make sure not all those cases were necessarily
`patent cases.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`7
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` The ones that were, I can think of
`two of them where I was retained by the challenger
`to the patent.
` Q So two of them?
` A Right.
` Q So does the drug name Trilipix®, does
`that sound familiar?
` A Yes, it does.
` Q Do you recall submitting a declaration
`or expert report in that case?
` A No.
` Q How about Yaz?
` A Do I recall submitting?
` Q Yeah.
` A No.
` Q Xyzal®, X-Y-Z-A-L?
` A And the question is do I recall
`submitting an expert report? No.
` Q Prevacid®?
` A And so the same question, no.
` Q So did you do any work in conjunction
`with those drugs for those cases?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`8
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: And so I work -- I was
`retained to study those and research them, and in
`that sense, do work on it.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q But for all four of those drugs I just
`mentioned, you don't recall submitting any type of
`expert report or declaration?
` A That's correct.
` Q And you offered no deposition
`testimony in connection with those drugs?
` A That's correct.
` Q When were you retained by Argentum for
`this case?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to the extent
`that it calls for any privileged information, but
`you can acknowledge when you were retained for
`this matter by Argentum.
` THE WITNESS: Sure. It was mid to
`late January.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q 2018?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`9
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A Yes, yes.
` Q And who contacted you?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Same objection. It's
`fine to acknowledge who initially contacted you
`for the engagement.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. So contacted me
`initially, or to say you're engaged?
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q Both.
` A So initially, I'm not sure. Somebody
`from Argentum called me.
` And to say that I was retained, I
`don't recall. Somebody from Foley Lardner.
` Q And who drafted your declaration?
` A I drafted my declaration.
` Q Okay. And you have personnel --
`you're an employee of Navigant? Strike that.
` You're from Navigant Consulting; is
`that correct?
` A From the sense of I'm employed by
`Navigant.
` Q You're employed by Navigant?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`10
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A That's correct.
` Q I was just clarifying. I wasn't sure
`if you were like a shareholder or a partner or
`anything like that. I called you an employee.
` Did you have personnel at Navigant
`that assisted you in drafting your declaration?
` A I had personnel that assisted me in
`certain aspects of preparing it, but not actually
`drafting it. I drafted it all.
` Q Okay. And in this proceeding, you
`understand that the '620 patent is the patent at
`issue?
` A Yes.
` Q Have you reviewed that patent?
` A I've reviewed parts of it.
` Q What parts?
` A I've reviewed the claims. And other
`than that, I've skimmed through it, and I can't
`recall what specific parts.
` Q Now, are you aware that the
`'620 patent was the subject of a district court
`trial that took place in December 2016?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`11
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Vaguely. I saw some --
`in the documents that are in the record of the
`case, I saw some declarations that were from
`another case, and so I assume that's what you're
`talking about.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q So as part of your analysis for this
`case -- and I'm just trying to make sure I
`understand your response to the previous question.
` So as part of your analysis for this
`case, you said you saw some declarations that were
`from another case?
` A Yes.
` Q Do you know what declarations?
` A No.
` Q Were they concerning commercial
`success?
` A I don't recall reviewing any dealing
`with commercial success. I saw that there were
`declarations there; I didn't review them.
` Q Did you review any part of the trial
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`12
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`transcripts from that case?
` A No.
` Q Do you recall reviewing any other
`materials that was part of that district court
`case from 2016?
` A No, except to the extent they were
`referenced in this case and got -- I want to say
`exhibit numbers in this case.
` Q Yeah.
` A Some of those had exhibit numbers or
`deposition numbers from other cases, and so those
`I may have reviewed, but only because it was part
`of this case.
` Q Now, earlier you said that you had
`reviewed portions of the '620 patent as part of
`your analysis.
` A I reviewed it. I mean, part of the
`analysis? You know, I reviewed it as a layman to
`kind of get a general understanding of what it
`covered.
` Q You said you reviewed the claims,
`correct?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`13
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A In that sense, yes.
` Q How did your review of the claims, if
`at all, affect or inform your analysis for
`purposes of your declaration?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I need something more --
`I mean, I don't know. You know, in a specific
`sense, it may have. I can't recall generally how
`it may -- did or did not inform it.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q I'm going to hand you, Mr. Staines,
`what's been previously marked as Exhibit 1140.
` Do you recognize this document?
` A Yes.
` Q And you agree this is a copy of the
`declaration of John C. Staines, Jr., in support of
`Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Response?
` A Yes, this is the text and the -- kind
`of my table and graph exhibits to that.
` Q So this is the declaration that you
`submitted in this IPR, correct?
` A Yes. I mean, to the -- I'll just
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`14
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 15
`caveat. To the extent that the CV isn't in here
`and stuff, but this is the text and tables that
`accompany that declaration.
` Q And exhibits?
` A And, yeah, exhibits.
` Q Okay. Let's turn to paragraph 121 of
`your declaration.
` A Yes, I see that.
` Q Now, in this paragraph you state that
`Meda offered rebates of more than 50 percent to
`insurers to ease reimbursement restrictions and
`reduce patient copayment requirements, right?
` A Yes, that's in the first sentence
`there.
` Q Now, did you compare Dymista®'s
`rebates to other rebates in the industry?
` A In some sense, yes.
` In the sense that, first of all, I
`cite a document that discusses rebates for other
`drugs, brand drugs, in the industry. And then,
`secondly, I had quite a bit of experience on my
`own just, you know, looking at drugs and knowing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`15
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the extent of rebates.
` So those two things combined, in that
`sense, I concluded that the rebates were
`comparatively high.
` Q Do you talk about any of that in
`paragraph 121?
` A Let's see. I'm not sure if I do.
` The exhibit numbers, it's always hard
`to say what exhibit is cited there, but if I have
`it in this particular paragraph, I've cited it
`elsewhere, the Fortune document.
` Q And anywhere in your declaration,
`whether in paragraph 121 or elsewhere, do you
`compare this rebate to rebates for other branded
`drugs?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that
`again?
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q So anywhere in your declaration,
`whether in paragraph 121 or elsewhere, do you
`compare Dymista®'s rebate to rebates for other
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`16
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`branded medicines?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: So by compare -- so in a
`couple ways. Elsewhere in the report -- and I
`can't tell you offhand where -- I've indicated
`that the rebates are higher than normal, and I
`cite in support of that a particular document as
`an example to show that it's high.
` I also at the beginning of the report
`indicate that my conclusions are also based on my
`experience working in the field as a consultant,
`and the cases that I've worked on are cited in the
`résumé. So as a general thing up front, I've also
`indicated that.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q But can you point me to anywhere in
`your declaration where you discuss that?
` A It's in here. I can't. We could take
`time to do it, but I'd have to -- I'd have to look
`in here, find that citation.
` Q That's fair enough. I certainly don't
`want to waste your time or mine, but you're
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`17
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`confident you think it's in the report?
` A Absolutely. There's a Fortune
`document that talks about all the different
`rebates for a number of different drugs.
` Q Did you examine or investigate what
`extent of Dymista®'s sales were attributable to
`the rebate program?
` A What do you mean by "attributable"?
`That were generated by? That the quantities were
`generated by the rebates?
` Q That's one interpretation, sure.
` A Okay. No, I don't have a precise
`estimate of what proportion was other than it was
`a primary driver.
` Q Did you undertake any analysis or
`discussion in your declaration about what portion
`of Dymista®'s sales were due to the rebate program
`versus the patented features?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: What I've addressed is
`the primary drivers, and that the patented
`features, for reasons discussed in a particular
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`18
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 19
`section of the report, were likely not significant
`drivers; and that the rebates, combined with the
`copayments, combined with the high share of voice
`in marketing, that those were primary drivers.
` I haven't attempted, and I don't think
`I could, attribute, you know, quantitatively what
`proportion of the sales were due to the particular
`factors.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q Do you think any of the sales could
`have been due to the patented features?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: And due to -- could you
`maybe define that a little more? Well, I'll ask
`you if you could define what you mean by "due to."
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q You don't understand what I mean when
`I say do you think any of the sales could have
`been due to the patent features?
` A I think that's ambiguous.
` Q What part of it?
` A The whole thing.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`19
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 20
` Q I mean, I want to clarify the question
`so you understand, so I want to know what part you
`don't --
` A Yeah, I just want to know what you
`mean by "due to."
` Q Have you ever heard of the phrase "due
`to"?
` A I have, but in a lot of contexts.
` Q Do you have an understanding of what
`"due to" means?
` A In a given context. I need a context
`though.
` Q Just pick a context and give me your
`understanding and we'll see if it matches mine.
` A So could it be due to the patented
`features? So, for instance, do you mean any of
`the patented features?
` Q Sure, yeah.
` A Any one of them, or all of them?
` Q Let's start with any one of them, and
`then maybe, depending on your answer, we can do
`them all.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`20
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 21
` A Yeah, I think it's possible that some
`of the sales may have been due to that in some
`sense, directly or indirectly.
` Q Earlier in one of your responses you
`used the phrase "primary driver." What is that?
` A That the sales, incremental sales,
`were made because of that factor, and that that
`was the primary factor, more important than other
`factors, to generate those sales.
` Q Let's turn to paragraph 123 of your
`declaration.
` A I'm there.
` Q In this paragraph, you discuss how
`Meda offered a copayment card to reduce patient's
`co-payment obligations, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Did you look to see whether
`competitors were offering similar copayment card
`programs?
` A No, I didn't look to see if
`competitors were.
` Q Do you think that would have been
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`21
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`relevant to understanding Dymista®'s copayment
`card program?
` A No.
` Q Why not?
` A I didn't see why it would.
` Q And in your declaration, do you
`discuss what extent the Dymista® sales were
`attributable to the copayment card program?
` A Again, I don't, and I don't think can,
`estimate the precise percentage, or even general
`percentage, other than to say it was a primary
`driver for reasons that I've discussed at length
`in this long report.
` Q Did you investigate or have any
`analysis that talks about impact of Dymista®'s
`copayment rebate program on consumers?
` A I'm sorry, could you repeat that
`again?
` Q Sure. Did you investigate or conduct
`any analysis in your declaration that assesses the
`impact that Dymista®'s copayment rebate program
`had on consumers or patients?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`22
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 23
` A So in this sense, that I gave economic
`reasons and cited economic articles and other
`industry articles indicating that copayment was
`important, a critical factor in deciding or
`determining sales quantity; that rebates were
`important in determining insurance coverage, which
`in turn was very important in determining
`quantity.
` And then indicating that, in
`Dymista®'s case, the copayments brought the
`effective price down to patients to something
`close to a generic drug, and that where the
`rebates were accepted by insurers to give
`favorable reimbursement status -- low copayments,
`no prior authorization, a lot of those kind of
`things -- that they were able to get those because
`of the high rebates that were offered.
` So that was my analysis.
` Q Would you agree that this sort of
`copayment rebate program is standard in the
`pharmaceutical industry?
` A In recent years, it's become more
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`23
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`prevalent. It's a very controversial practice
`because it does -- or has been accused of trying
`to get around the insurers' efforts to discourage
`use of drugs that are not significant improvement
`over other drugs.
` There's that, and then actually it's
`been subject to a lot of, I think antitrust suits
`or suits that try to -- you know, that indicate
`that it's somehow illegal or anticompetitive or
`something, but it has become more prevalent.
` Now, the extent to which it reduces
`the copayment, that varies, but reducing the
`copayment to something close to generic, I don't
`think that that is common.
` Q Now, is it your position that a rebate
`program like this precludes a finding of
`commercial success?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: So what do you mean
`"like this"? This specific --
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q I'm sorry, let me be more accurate.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`24
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Is it your position that rebate
`programs, such as the one that Dymista® has,
`precludes a finding of commercial success?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I can't say that. I
`mean, I think this is -- you have to kind of look
`at it in the context of the whole thing.
` You know, this in conjunction with the
`copayment program; that, in my opinion, the drug
`is not all that innovative; and it's questionable
`how much -- that there's not much that is likely
`coming from the features of the patent.
` All those things together would
`indicate that, yeah, this rebate program is a
`significant driver in sales. But in other cases,
`I can't say that categorically.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q When you say that it's your opinion
`that you don't think this drug is innovative,
`what's your basis for that?
` A I have a section in here, it starts I
`think at paragraph 109, "Dymista® Has Minimal
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`25
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Incremental Benefit Over Concurrent Use of
`Individual Antihistamine and Corticosteroid
`Products," and in there I discuss the comparisons
`that are made between Dymista® and using
`antihistamine and corticosteroids separately or
`concurrently, and that the evidence that it's
`superior is not strong, I'll put it that way. I
`use more articulate words in here.
` Q That's fine. You're plenty
`articulate.
` When you say the evidence, are you
`talking about clinical evidence?
` A That's one of the things.
` Q What else?
` A Let's see. So one of the -- I'll
`probably go through here. What's difficult is
`that, with the exhibit numbers, I don't remember
`what the documents are, so I'll try to remember
`the particular documents that I'm thinking of.
` There was a global something study
`that discussed that there was limited evidence of
`Dymista® being better than concurrent use of the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`26
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`antihistamine and corticosteroids in the
`particular of Astepro®, Astelin, and Flonase®
`separately.
` There was a document, I think it was
`like a physician focus group study, that talked
`about the physicians, ENTs and allergists, that
`were surveyed indicated they didn't find that a
`combination drug provided that much benefit over
`another drug -- over the concurrent use.
` Let's see. Let me now look in the
`report and see what else I have on that.
` Oh, so the other thing is that as a
`life cycle management strategy, to get -- to
`generate sales of a follow-on product does not
`require significant incremental benefits, so -- so
`I'll stop with that.
` What else? I think that I relied on a
`declaration by Dr. Schleimer.
` Q "Schleimer"?
` A "Schleimer," thank you, who also
`indicated that the -- his opinion -- gave the
`opinion that the Dymista® was not -- didn't
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`27
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`provide benefits over concurrent use of these
`products.
` And there might be a couple other
`things I'm forgetting.
` Q Okay. Going back to paragraph 123 and
`your opinions concerning the rebate program, as
`part of your analysis or work in this case, did
`you conduct any patient surveys to assess the
`impact of the rebate program on patients?
` A I didn't -- no, I didn't conduct any
`surveys. I didn't think I needed to.
` Q Any type of study or investigation
`into how the rebate program affected patients'
`purchasing decisions?
` A No. I'm sorry, could you repeat that
`again?
` Q Sure. Did you conduct any type of
`study or investigation into how the rebate program
`might have affected patients' purchasing
`decisions?
` A Well, so now those aren't surveys.
`Study or investigation, I've done that, and I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`28
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 29
`think I mentioned that before, where I looked at
`economic articles and, you know, economic
`reasoning on why these things are important, so
`that's -- I consider that study and investigation,
`so yes.
` Q That was specific to Dymista®, any of
`those materials?
` A No, not specific, no. No, that's not
`necessary in my opinion.
` Q Now, in your declaration you discuss
`the impact that Meda salesforce had on Dymista®
`sales, correct?
` A Yes. I mean, a little more specific
`than that, but yes.
` Q Generally, you discuss the salesforce?
` A Yes.
` Q But do you recall in your declaration
`you delineating or attributing a portion of
`Dymista®'s sales to its salesforce?
` A I indicated and came to the opinion
`that it was a primary contributor to Dymista®
`sales.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2018
`
`202-232-0646
`
`29
`
`
`
`4/4/2018
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Cipla, Ltd.
`
`John C. Staines, Jr.
`
`Page 30
` Q Let's say that that salesforce was cut
`in half. What impact do you think that would have
`on Dymista® sales?
` MR. CHESLOCK: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: I think it would reduce
`their sales.
` BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q Do you know to what extent it might?
` A No.
` Q Do you think if Dymista® was a bad
`product, the salesforce would -- strike that.
` Do you think that if Dymista® was a
`bad product, it would still have the same sales?
` A I need to know what a bad product is.
`Bad product that kills people? Bad product
`that --
` Q That's pretty morbid.
` A Sorry. You know, I mean, what do you
`mean by a bad product?
` Q Undesirable, something that patients
`don't like.
` A I think it depends. You know,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
