throbber
10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
` Petitioner
` v.
` CIPLA LTD.
` Patent Owner
` Patent No. 8,168,620
` IPR2017-00807
`
` Deposition of ROBERT P. SCHLEIMER, PH.D., at
` the offices of Foley & Lardner, 321 North
` Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, before
` Donna M. Kazaitis, IL-CSR, RPR, and CRR,
` commencing at the hour of 10:00 a.m. on
` Friday, October 20, 2017
`
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`CIP2158
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals v. Cipla Ltd.
`IPR2017-00807
`
`1
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
` BY: MICHAEL R. HOUSTON, PH.D., ESQ.
` 321 North Clark Street
` Suite 2800
` Chicago, Illinois 60654-5313
` 312.832.4378
` mhouston@foley.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: DENNIES VARUGHESE, PHARM.D., ESQ.
` DEBORAH STERLING, PH.D., ESQ.
` JOSHUA I. MILLER, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` dvarughe@skgf.com
` dsterlin@skgf.com
` jmiller@skgf.com
`
`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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`2
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`ROBERT P. SCHLEIMER, PH.D.
` Examination by Mr. Varughese 4, 111
` Examination by Mr. Houston 108
`
` EXHIBITS
` PAGE
`Exhibit CIP2018 12/13/16 trial transcript 5
`Exhibit CIP2019 12/14/16 trial transcript 7
`Exhibit CIP2025 9/29/16 depo transcript 8
`Exhibit CIP2145 U.S. Patent 6,599,914 B2 38
`Exhibit CIP2146 U.S. Utility 9/841,506 40
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Robert P. 23
` Schleimer, Ph.D.
` (IPR2007-00807)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent 5,164,194 52
` (IPR2007-00807)
`
`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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`3
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`(Witness sworn.)
` ROBERT P. SCHLEIMER, PH.D.,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Schleimer.
` A. Good morning, Mr. Varughese.
` Q. Just for the record, my name is
`Dennies Varughese from the law firm of Sterne
`Kessler on behalf of patent owner here in this
`proceeding Cipla. With me today is backup counsel
`of record Deborah Sterling. And also joining us
`is Joshua Miller, an associate at our firm.
` Dr. Schleimer, we have met before.
` A. We have.
` Q. We've been in another proceeding,
`which we'll get to.
` Given our familiarity, I'm not
`going to go over some of the preliminaries. I
`assume that you're familiar with the deposition
`and what we're here to do today, just the typical
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`4
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`rules.
` One of them is I'm going to use
`plain English words. I'm going to presume that
`you understand the meaning of the words that I use
`in my questions unless you tell me otherwise; is
`that fair?
` A. That's fair.
` Q. Okay. Are you on any medication or do
`you suffer from any ailment that would preclude
`you from testifying truthfully and accurately
`today?
` A. No.
` Q. So, Dr. Schleimer, I am going to hand
`you what has been previously marked in this
`proceeding as CIP 2018. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` A. Okay.
` Q. Please take a moment to orient
`yourself to that document.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Well, I recognize the front page. It
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`5
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 6
`appears to be from the court case in Wilmington,
`Delaware that was last December.
` Q. And just for identification purposes,
`I think that court case that you're referring to
`is Meda Pharmaceuticals and Cipla Ltd., vs. Apotex
`Inc. and Apotex Corp., Case Number 14-1453-LPS.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this is a trial between Meda and
`Apotex involving, among other things, the '620
`Patent that is at issue in this IPR proceeding;
`correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. If you flip through that document, and
`take as much time as you need, would you recognize
`this document as your trial testimony from that
`trial?
` MR. HOUSTON: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, it may have my
`testimony in it, but it appears to have many other
`testimonies.
`BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q. If I can direct you to Page 141.
`
`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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`6
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. Do you recognize that as beginning
`your testimony?
` A. It appears to be when Mr. Klein said
`"Good afternoon, Dr. Schleimer."
` Q. Yes. And then flipping through this,
`do you have any reason to believe that this is not
`a transcript of your testimony from that trial,
`recognizing that it also contains other material,
`as you've alluded to?
` A. Well, yeah, my brief inspection
`suggests that it is a transcript.
` Q. Okay. And when you testified in that
`trial, you testified under oath; correct?
` A. I did.
` Q. Dr. Schleimer, I'm going to hand you
`what's been previously marked as CIP2019 in this
`IPR proceeding. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` A. Okay.
` Q. Take a moment to orient yourself to
`that document, please.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`7
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 8
` A. Okay. I've looked at the front page.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. It looks very similar to the one you
`just handed me.
` Q. Okay. The one I just handed you being
`the trial transcripts from the December trial mean
`Meda and Apotex; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then would you agree that this
`document, CIP2019, is the remainder of your
`testimony from that trial proceeding?
` A. That would be a reasonable assumption
`on my part. It starts on Page 157 and this one
`ends at 156, yes.
` Q. And the testimony that you gave that's
`reflected in this second half of the transcript
`was still under oath; correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Dr. Schleimer, I'm going to hand you
`what's been previously marked as CIP2025 in this
`IPR proceeding. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
`
`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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`8
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. Take a moment to orient yourself to
`the document, please.
` A. These are heavy. I didn't know I was
`going to get exercise.
` Q. Killed a lot of trees.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you identify this document?
` A. Well, on the front page it says it's a
`transcript from the videotaped deposition of me at
`Winston & Strawn.
` Q. And who is Winston & Strawn?
` A. Those are the attorneys that were
`representing Apotex.
` Q. And they were representing you for
`purposes of that deposition? Is that fair to say?
` A. I guess technically. You tell me.
`I'm not a lawyer.
` Q. Sure. So let's take a step back.
` Looking at this document, does it
`appear to be the transcript of your testimony from
`a deposition that took place on September 29,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`9
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2016?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that deposition was conducted in
`connection with Meda Pharmaceuticals and Cipla
`Ltd., versus Apotex Inc.; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this deposition would have been
`related to the testimony that you ultimately gave
`at trial in that case; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that testimony were the two
`previous exhibits that we just discussed.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And Winston & Strawn, they were the
`law firms that attended that deposition?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And they worked with you to prepare
`for that deposition?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And they were there representing you
`in the sense that they lodged objections or maybe
`other comments during that deposition on your
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`10
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`behalf?
` A. If that's an appropriate use of the
`word "represented," I would say yes.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I viewed them as representing Apotex
`and bringing me in as an expert witness.
` Q. Understood. You can set that aside
`for now.
` So, Dr. Schleimer, where are you
`currently employed?
` A. At Northwestern University.
` Q. And your title there?
` A. I'm a professor of medicine, professor
`of microbiology immunology, professor of
`otolaryngology, head and neck surgery, and the
`chief of the allergy and immunology division.
` Q. So can you briefly summarize for us
`your post high school education and training?
` A. Post high school. Well, I went to
`University of California, San Diego, and majored
`in biology. After that I attended the University
`of California, Davis, where I received a Ph.D.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`11
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`And then I was a post-doctoral fellow at Johns
`Hopkins University, joined the faculty, and stayed
`there for a total of 25 years.
` Then in 2004 Northwestern offered
`me the job as the chief of allergy and immunology,
`and I left Johns Hopkins.
` Q. So at no time did you earn a medical
`degree or an M.D. degree, if I can call it that?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. So you're not a medical doctor or a
`physician.
` A. I am not.
` Q. So you cannot prescribe medications
`for patients?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Have you ever been involved in drug
`formulation work?
` A. I'm certainly familiar with
`formulation. I've done a limited amount of it for
`humans. I've done more in mouse studies,
`formulating vaccines or drugs to treat the
`animals, as well as other species of animals
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`12
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`during my training as a Ph.D. student. But I
`would say I'm not an expert in formulation even
`though I understand the principles of it.
` Q. And in the work that you did where you
`say you were involved in formulating, did your
`activities include selecting excipients and
`actually developing prototypes in a laboratory
`setting?
` A. It wasn't terribly involved, but the
`excipients would have included saline and a buffer
`and things like that in which we suspended an
`experimental drug.
` Q. And you mentioned experimental drug.
`Did the drug that you worked on ever make it to
`market?
` A. No.
` Q. Now, focusing on nasal spray products.
`In your opinion was it important for drugs in a
`nasal spray product to be evenly distributed in
`the medium?
` MR. HOUSTON: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what you
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`13
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`mean by "evenly distributed."
`BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q. So when I use the phrase "evenly
`distributed" in the drug product, you don't know
`what I'm referring to?
` A. I don't. It could have various
`interpretations.
` Q. Give me one interpretation.
` A. Well, in the case of a suspension, the
`drug might be a particulate or it might be in
`droplets of oil and they could settle or they
`could rise to the top. So some formulations have
`to be shaken, for example, in order to distribute
`the drug. And it's still not completely evenly
`distributed. So I'm not sure what you mean by
`that question.
` Q. So you mentioned there could be
`sedimentation -- I'm paraphrasing -- is that fair?
`You said sometimes the suspension could settle at
`the bottom, the drug? Is that what you said
`earlier?
` A. Some intranasal preparations need to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`14
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`be shaken before administered so that it
`distributes the drug throughout the volume of the
`preparation so that when it's sprayed, the small
`amount sprayed, has a representative amount of
`drug of the totality that's in the canister.
` Q. So when you say shaken so that it
`distributes the drug throughout the volume of the
`preparation, how in your view is that different
`than evenly distributed?
` A. Well, it's still unevenly distributed
`if it's a suspension. Wherever there's a
`particle, there's very high amounts of drug, and
`wherever there's not a particle there's very low
`amounts of drug. But the particles can be evenly
`distributed such that in, let's say
`100 microliters, the number of particles will be
`roughly the same from spray to spray.
` Q. That's helpful. Thank you.
` So when you shake a drug product
`that is a suspension, the particles themselves
`will be evenly distributed, whereas the drug would
`be concentrated around the location of the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`15
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`particles themselves?
` A. This is a theoretical discussion, but
`yes, what you said can occur in some situations.
` Q. Okay. So let's focus on the drug
`fluticasone. Are you familiar with fluticasone?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you understand that that's one of
`the drugs that are at issue for purposes of this
`patent which we'll get into?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you have just a general
`understanding of what fluticasone is in terms of
`its class?
` A. I do. It's an anti-inflammatory
`steroid, sometimes called glucocorticosteriod or
`corticosteroid.
` Q. And you understand that fluticasone is
`practically insoluble in water?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you know that this means that
`fluticasone can't be used in a solution?
` A. That question is actually not clear.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`16
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`It can be used in a solution of acetone no
`problem, it'll dissolve in acetone.
` Q. So can fluticasone dissolved in
`acetone be administered to patients?
` A. No.
` Q. Why not?
` A. Well, you wouldn't administer acetone
`to patients. So your question was can it be
`dissolved, and my answer is it depends on the
`solvent.
` But let me say that I have not
`represented myself as a formulator, and I have not
`testified in any detail about formulations. So I
`mean I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'm
`not presenting myself as an expert in the
`formulation components of this litigation.
` Q. I appreciate that. I guess just to
`maybe close the loop here. Setting aside acetone,
`do you know if fluticasone can be formulated in a
`water solution?
` MR. HOUSTON: Objection, beyond the
`scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`17
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 18
` THE WITNESS: By "formulated" you mean
`in a pharmaceutically acceptable way?
`BY MR. VARUGHESE:
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes. It's used in, it's one of the
`most popular drugs in our field and it's used in
`Flonase in a formulation.
` Q. Will fluticasone go into solution in
`water?
` A. A small amount will, but a majority of
`it will stay out of solution.
` Q. So you're here testifying today,
`Dr. Schleimer, on behalf of a company called
`Argentum; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When were you first contacted by
`Argentum or its counsel to work on this matter?
` A. The first two weeks in January of this
`year I believe.
` Q. Who contacted you?
` A. I don't recall his name. I never met
`him in person. I'm sorry. I could find out, but
`
`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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`18
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I don't recall his name.
` Q. Where would you need to look to find
`out?
` A. I would have to go to my office and
`look at my email.
` Q. Was it Michael R. Houston, Mr. Houston
`who's here present today representing you in this
`deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Was it Joseph P. Mira?
` A. I don't believe it was either of them.
` Q. Was it someone named James P.
`McFarland?
` A. I don't think so.
` Q. Was it Tyler C. Liu of Argentum
`Pharmaceuticals?
` A. I spoke with him early on. He was one
`of the -- I mean I spoke with more than one of
`them. I was on vacation and they were calling me.
`He was one of the early ones, but I'm not sure he
`was the first one to call. I'm sorry.
` Q. That's okay, that's okay.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`19
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 20
` When you say one of the early ones,
`do you mean in that first two weeks in January
`timeframe?
` A. Yeah. When I said I spoke with more
`than one of them, he was one of the two or three
`people that I spoke with in that timeframe,
`January, February.
` Q. Had you ever spoken with Mr. Tyler Liu
`before that conversation in January of 2017, just
`to be precise?
` A. No, not to my knowledge.
` Q. Do you recall seeing him at the Apotex
`trial, which is the trial that we discussed
`earlier today?
` A. I don't specifically recall that. I
`know that there were some people at that trial
`from other companies that had an interest. I
`don't know which side they were interested in.
` I know it's a little like a
`wedding. There was a couple of them sitting on
`the Apotex side. But I didn't have lengthy
`conversations with them. And I don't recall 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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`20
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Tyler Liu was there.
` Q. That trial certainly made me think of
`a wedding too.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Were you ever contacted by Mr. Jeffrey
`Gardner?
` A. Can you tell me who he is? Is he with
`Argentum also?
` Q. So I don't want to testify on your
`behalf. My understanding --
` A. I don't recall the name. I may have,
`you know. These brief interactions my brain is
`programmed to forget quickly, unless there's a
`reason to remember.
` Q. Argentum in this proceeding is being
`represented by the law firm Foley & Lardner;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And Mr. Houston is an attorney from
`the Foley & Lardner firm.
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Do you recall when you first started
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`21
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 22
`working with the Foley law firm in connection with
`this proceeding?
` A. It's fuzzy in my mind. I know that
`the declaration was a collaboration that involved
`a number of people on the attorney side.
` As I said, we didn't have
`face-to-face meetings, so I was dealing with, you
`know, the electronic world, sending me documents
`and we were sending them back and forth.
` So I can't tell you what month. In
`fact, I can't even recall the date of the
`declaration. It's probably on the declaration.
`It was sometime that spring.
` Q. Okay. Do you have a written agreement
`setting forth your engagement with Argentum for
`this proceeding?
` A. I'm not sure. I don't think I do, but
`I may.
` Q. Have you served as a testifying
`witness for other companies in your career?
` A. On a few occasions, yes.
` Q. Is it your practice to have a written
`
`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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`22
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`engagement with those companies?
` A. I think I have had one on occasion.
`I've not done a lot of this, but I think there may
`have been one once.
` Q. What would we need to do to confirm
`whether you have a written engagement with
`Argentum in this case or not?
` A. Again, I'd need to go to my office and
`look. If I had one, it would be at my work office
`and my secretary would have a copy of it.
` Q. Okay. Do you recall executing a
`written engagement with the Foley & Lardner law
`firm in connection with this proceeding?
` A. I do not. Again, that doesn't mean
`there isn't one, but I do not recall having one.
` Q. Dr. Schleimer, I'm going to hand you
`what's been marked as Exhibit 1003 in this IPR
`proceeding. (Document tendered to the witness.)
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Can you identify this document?
` A. Yeah, on the face of it it's my
`declaration in this litigation.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`23
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Let's turn to Page 57 of this
`document.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is that your signature on the bottom?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And it was signed February 2, 2017?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So in flipping through this, does this
`appear to be a fair and accurate copy of the
`declaration that was submitted in this case?
` A. Looks to be.
` Q. Okay. Can we turn to Paragraph 62 of
`your declaration is. Do you mind just reading
`Paragraph 62 into the record?
` A. "Azelastine was the most effective
`antihistamine on the market. As stated earlier,
`intranasal antihistamines were known to be better
`than oral antihistamines, since they were safer
`and had additional anti-inflammatory effects not
`shared by oral antihistamines. Most importantly,
`intranasal antihistamines do not have the systemic
`side effects that often result from utilizing oral
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`24
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`antihistamines."
` Q. So in reading that paragraph, and I'm
`going to paraphrase this for simplicity sake but
`please correct me if I'm saying anything
`incorrect, it was your opinion that at the time of
`invention here, the '620 Patent, that a POSA would
`have viewed intranasal antihistamines as preferred
`over oral antihistamines; is that correct?
` A. No, no, I would not say that. I said
`here that it's better, it's more effective. But
`there are issues of patient choice that play a
`huge role in all drugs but in antihistamines as
`well.
` A lot of patients don't like to use
`nasal sprays. They don't like the feel of it.
`They don't want to do it in public. It makes them
`uncomfortable some other way. And even though
`intranasal drugs may be the most effective, they
`may prefer to take an oral antihistamine.
` Also, the oral antihistamines have
`actions that can be beneficial outside of the
`nose. Many of these patients have what's called
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`25
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 26
`the allergic diathesis. They can have dermatitis,
`they can have itching in the ears or the eyes, and
`some of those patients will prefer to take an
`oral, nonsedating antihistamine because it not
`only helps them with their nasal symptoms but can
`also help them with the itching in their skin or
`their ears or their eyes.
` So this statement has to do with
`the signs and symptoms of allergic rhinitis.
` Q. What statement are you talking about?
` A. That azelastine was the most
`effective.
` So the flipside of that coin is
`that by using them topically and locally, they
`have many fewer systemic side effects than the
`oral antihistamines.
` So each patient and each physician
`weighs the benefits of the different forms of
`taking these different drugs and decides for
`themselves.
` Q. So depending on the context, some
`physicians and patients would prefer oral
`
`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 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`26
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`antihistamines, whereas in other contexts some
`physicians and patients would prefer nasal
`antihistamines. Is that fair to say?
` A. Yeah, I think it's not uncommon for
`the decision to also be made on the basis of the
`severity of the illness.
` So if somebody comes into a
`doctor's office and they have very mild symptoms,
`a little sneezing and itchiness of the nose, maybe
`a little running of the nose but nothing too
`bothersome, the doctor may give them an oral
`antihistamine that's nonsedating but with
`reasonable expectation that the symptoms would
`improve greatly. And, as I said, many patients
`like to take oral medicines. They can do it
`easily. There's no bother with an intranasal
`preparation.
` Q. So let's go to the 2001, 2002
`timeframe.
` A. Okay.
` Q. You know what a POSA is, P-O-S-A --
` A. Yes.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`27
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. -- in the context of this case?
` A. Person of skill in the art.
` Q. Person of skill in the art.
` And the declaration that you
`submitted, both in this IPR and your expert report
`testimony in the Apotex litigation, you were
`offering opinions from the perspective of a POSA?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So if I were to ask you to go back to
`the 2001, 2002 timeframe, would a POSA have a
`preference as to intranasal antihistamines versus
`oral antihistamine?
` A. You mean as a scientist? As a person
`who either treats patients or develops drugs for
`allergy or both, would they have a preference?
` Q. Let's talk about someone who treats
`patients.
` A. Sure. I mean that's why we pay our
`doctors to help us with our decisions of what
`drugs to take. Different doctors have different
`preferences. But yeah, doctors each have their
`own paradigm, their own regimen for treating
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`28
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`patients.
` But then, as is true now,
`antihistamines represented fully two thirds of the
`total market for allergic rhinitis. So they were
`a major weapon in the armamentarium of all
`doctors, be they internists or allergists, who
`were treating allergic rhinitis. Some of those
`would be POSAs by my definition and others would
`not.
` So there are plenty of treating
`physicians that are not persons of skill in the
`art, as I have defined it. And there are plenty
`of treating physicians who are as long as they
`have also a scientific background and have spent a
`few years studying drug development or formulation
`or that sort of thing.
` Q. So -- and I apologize if you answered
`this part of the question there -- but let's talk
`about the POSA, as you've defined it --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- based on your definition. And if
`it's helpful for you, we can go back to your
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`29
`
`

`

`10/20/2017
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Cipla Ltd.
`
`Robert P. Schleimer
`
`Page 30
`declaration and see what that is if you'd like to.
` A. Sure. Do you have a paragraph?
` Q. So take a look at your declaration and
`I'll reask that question.
` A. Paragraph 12?
` Q. I think it's Paragraphs 11 and 12 I
`think you've identified them.
` So now that you've had a chance to
`review your definition of a POSA, I'd like to ask
`that same question. A POSA, based on your
`definition in the 2001, 2002 timeframe, did that
`POSA have a preference as to oral versus
`intranasal antihistamines?
` MR. HOUSTON: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I thought I answered
`that.
` Well, "preference" is a very
`subjective word. As a patient, they may, if
`they're a patient. As a physician, they may, if
`they're a physician. As a scienti

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