` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
` PETITIONERS,
` NO. IPR2017-01159;
` vs. IPR2017-01160
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
` PATENT OWNER.
` ______________________________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF GREGORY ENNS, MB, ChB
` MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA
` MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018
`
`REPORTED BY:
`MEGAN F. ALVAREZ, RPR, CSR No. 12470
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 2
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
` PETITIONERS,
` NO. IPR2017-01159;
` vs. IPR2017-01160
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
` PATENT OWNER.
` ______________________________________________________
`
` Deposition of GREGORY ENNS, MB, ChB,
`taken on behalf of Petitioner, at Residence Inn,
`555 Glenwood Avenue, Menlo Park, California, beginning
`at 8:04 a.m. and ending at 11:04 a.m. on Monday,
`April 23, 2018, before Megan F. Alvarez, RPR, Certified
`Shorthand Reporter No. 12470.
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`2 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
` BY: ELIZABETH HOLLAND, ESQ.
` GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
` THE NEW YORK TIMES BUILDING
` 620 EIGHTH AVENUE
` NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10018
` 212.459.7230
` EHOLLAND@GOODWINPROCTER.COM
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` BY: ROBERT F. GREEN, ESQ.
` ANN K. KOTZE, ESQ.
` GREEN GRIFFITH
` 676 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE
` SUITE 3900
` CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611
` 312.883.8000
` RGREEN@GREENGRIFFITH.COM
` AKOTZE@GREENGRIFFITH.COM
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`3 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`GREGORY ENNS, MB, CHB
`
` BY MS. HOLLAND 7
` BY MR. GREEN 40
`
` --o0o--
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`45
`
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`4 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`No. Description Page
`Exhibit 1001 United States Patent No. ............60
` 9,254,278 B2
`
`Exhibit 1026 Petition for Inter Parties ..........13
` Review of U.S. Patent No.
` 9,254,278 in the IPR2017-01159
` case
`
`Exhibit 1027 Petition for Inter Parties ..........13
` Review of U.S. Patent No.
` 9,326,966, in the IPR2017-01160
` case
`
`Exhibit 1028 Final written decision, dated .......14
` 9/26/17, Case IPR2016-00829,
` Patent 9,095,559 B2
`
`Exhibit 2001 Declaration of Dr. Gregory M. .......10
` Enns in the IPR2016-829 case
`
`Exhibit 2005 United States Patent No. ............60
` 9,095,559 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`5 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`No. Description Page
`Exhibit 2006 Declaration of Dr. Gregory M. .......15
` Enns in the IPR2017-01159 case,
` Patent 9,254,278
`
`Exhibit 2006 Declaration of Dr. Gregory M. .......28
` Enns in the IPR2017-01160 case,
` Patent 9,326,966
`
`Exhibit 2007 Gregory Mark Enns, M.B., Ch.B., ......9
` Curriculum Vitae
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`6 of 80
`
`
`
` MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA
` MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018
` 8:04 A.M.
`
`Page 7
`
` GREGORY ENNS, MB, CHB,
` having been first duly sworn, was examined and
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Enns.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. I'll introduce myself again. I'm Elizabeth
`Holland, and I'm one of the lawyers representing Lupin
`in these IPR proceedings.
` I know you've had your deposition taken before
`in this case, so I'm going to dispense with the usual
`instructions.
` My first question is: Since the time of your
`last deposition with -- I think with respect to the '559
`patent IPR, have you done any work for Horizon other
`than in the context of this case?
` A. As far as Horizon goes, I attended a patient
`meeting for which I was given an honorarium.
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`45
`
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`7 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
` Q. What's a patient meeting?
` A. It was an interesting meeting designed to
`understand patient perceptions of living with a urea
`cycle disease. So it was one of those glass -- how do
`you say it, that you can't see through?
` Q. One way?
` A. Yes, one-way glass.
` And there were a number of experts who watched
`the interactions with patients related to a variety of
`different questions about urea cycle disorders, living
`with them, what are the main issues that families are
`facing, things like that.
` And then afterwards we had a meeting with the
`experts who were observing the patients to discuss ways
`forward and how best to assist our patients. So it was
`a patient and a physician meeting that was...
` Q. What was the honorarium?
` A. I don't recall precisely. It was in the range
`of a few thousand dollars.
` Q. Other than that one patient meeting, have you
`had any other payments from Horizon?
` A. I'm not sure that was directly from Horizon;
`that was from the meeting group that was putting that
`together. I think it was most likely a Horizon event,
`so to speak. Not that I recall.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`8 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 2007 was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. I'm going to hand you Horizon Exhibit 2007,
`which is your CV. I just have a few questions.
` First of all, if you look at the first page,
`your undergraduate degree seems to be May 1984. And
`then it seems that you started at St. Andrews University
`in September 1985; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. What did you do in the intervening time?
` A. In the intervening time, I lived for a summer
`in Davis, California.
` And worked on a -- on a farm doing plant
`genetics for a summer.
` And thereafter, I moved to Vail, Colorado, and
`I worked on the mountain at a ski resort.
` Following that I traveled throughout southeast
`Asia, and then I started medical school.
` Q. How come you -- you went to Scotland for
`medical school?
` A. It was serendipity. I had a friend of the
`family who is Scottish and who had gone to the
`University of St. Andrews and recommended that I apply,
`and I did. And I ended up going there.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`9 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 10
` And the way it works going to St. Andrews,
`that's where the preclinical years are done. And then
`Scottish citizens or U.K. citizens then tend to go to
`the University of Manchester to complete their training.
`And then foreign students go to University of Glasgow,
`so that's where I ended up doing my medical work.
` Q. What is a diploma in medical science?
` A. That is a diploma given by University of
`St. Andrews showing completion of the preclinical years.
` Q. And then your CV indicates that you got
`something called an "MB ChB degree" in June 1990. What
`is that?
` A. That would be the equivalent of an MD in the
`United States. It's a bachelor of medicine and bachelor
`of surgery, with those initials and the order being
`because that's the Latin translation.
` Each university in the United Kingdom has
`different initials that they tend to give out. You
`might be more familiar with an MBBS or something like
`that, but it's the equivalent of an MD in the United
`Kingdom.
` MS. HOLLAND: I'm handing you now a Horizon
`Exhibit 2001.
` (Whereupon Exhibit 2001 was marked for
` identification.)
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`10 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. Dr. Enns, do you see that this is a
`declaration you submitted in connection with IPR2016-829
`that concerned the '559 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you aware that Horizon submitted this
`declaration again in the IPRs that are at issue here?
` A. I'm -- I don't recall the details of that.
` Q. Okay. When is the first time that you heard
`that there was an IPR on the '278 patent?
` A. Again, I don't recall. I looked at the '278
`patent sometime within the last year or so, but I don't
`recall when I first heard about it.
` Q. Can you be any more specific than "the last
`year"?
` A. I can't, no.
` Q. And you can't tell me if you were aware that
`Horizon was submitting Exhibit 2001 to the PTAB in
`connection with the '278 IPR?
` A. No, I don't recall those details.
` Q. And again, you can't tell me when the first
`time was that you read the '278 patent?
` A. No, I don't remember. I might have a record
`of that as far as billing it as such, but I don't have a
`specific recollection of when I did, 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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`11 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 12
` Q. I have the same questions with respect to the
`IPR in the '966 patent.
` Do you understand that that's also at issue
`today?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. When was the first time you read the '966
`patent?
` A. I would imagine it would be around the time of
`the '278, but I similarly don't recall the first time I
`read it.
` Q. And do you recall whether you knew that
`Horizon was submitting your declaration from the '559
`patent IPR in connection with the IPR on the '966
`patent?
` A. I don't recall the details related to that.
`I'm sorry.
` Q. Do you recall reading the petitions that were
`files in connection with the IPRs on the '278 and '966
`patents?
` A. "Petitions" meaning what exactly?
` Q. The petitions -- well, let me give them to
`you.
` A. Thank you.
` MS. HOLLAND: I think I'm going to have to
`mark these.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`12 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 13
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1026 was marked for
` identification.)
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1027 was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. Dr. Enns, have you seen what's been marked as
`Exhibit 1026 before?
` A. I may have. I don't recall specifically.
` These documents tend to look alike in my
`memory.
` Similar answer to the document marked 1027.
` Q. Did you read the declaration that was
`submitted by Dr. Vaux in these IPRs?
` A. Yes, I have read declarations submitted by
`Dr. Vaux.
` Q. When was the first time you read those
`declarations?
` A. Again, I don't recall when they were sent to
`me.
` Q. Can you tell me whether it was after
`July 2017?
` A. I really don't know. It would have been
`within the last year, but I don't recall when I first
`saw those declarations.
` Q. What's your first recollection of being
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`13 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`involved in the IPRs that are at issue?
` A. There have been many continuations of various
`IPRs, so I don't have a specific recollection of when I
`saw the IPRs that are at issue today. I think it was
`sometime within the last year, but I don't recall more
`than that.
` Q. Have you ever reviewed the decision of the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board on the IPR in the '559
`patent?
` A. Not that I recall.
` Q. Do you know what the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board decided in that case?
` A. I'm not certain. I think that the outcome in
`that case -- because I get the numbers mixed up, I'm
`just not going to say with any certainty. I'm not sure.
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1028 was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. I've just handed you Exhibit 1028. If you can
`take a look at that for a minute and just let me know if
`you've ever seen this before.
` A. There are some things that look familiar such
`as the claims, but I'm not sure I've ever seen this
`specific document before.
` Q. Okay. You can put that down.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`14 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 15
` MS. HOLLAND: Handing you now Horizon
`Exhibit 2006.
` (Whereupon Exhibit 2006 was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. Is this a copy of the declaration that you
`submitted in these IPRs?
` A. Yes. This looks like a copy of the
`declaration I submitted related to the '278 patent.
` Q. When was the last time you saw this document?
` A. I reviewed this document last week -- within
`the last week, I should say.
` Q. If you go to the last page of the documents,
`page 64.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that your signature?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is that the date that you signed this
`document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So it's July 19th, 2017?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Do you recall why you signed the document on
`that date?
` A. I do not recall why I signed the document on
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`15 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 16
`that date. This is when the document was completed, I
`would imagine, but I always date when I sign.
` Q. Okay. Do you know whether there had been an
`institution decision as of July 2017?
` A. I do not know.
` Q. Would you turn to paragraph 4 on page 2. Can
`you confirm for me that the only materials you
`considered in connection with the IPRs are the materials
`that are listed in paragraph 4?
` A. That looks correct. Of course I know the
`background literature quite well because I'm an expert
`in the field, but this is what I have reviewed.
` Q. Okay. This particular paragraph says that you
`reviewed "the Petition for Inter Partes Review" of the
`'278 patent.
` Do you see that?
` A. "The Petition for Inter Partes Review," I'm
`not exactly sure which one that is. I saw the
`Declaration of Dr. Vaux, which I did review.
` Q. Well, look back at Exhibit 1026.
` A. 1026. Thank you.
` I don't recall reviewing this. I may have at
`some point. It's -- if I did review this, this would
`have been last year. I don't recall otherwise.
` Q. Would you turn to paragraph 39.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`16 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 17
` Do you see that the first statement you make
`there is: "Dietary treatment is considered the
`'cornerstone of therapy'"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you explain what you mean by that?
` A. In urea cycle disorders, patients have an
`inherent inability to metabolize nitrogen normally.
` And we obtain much of our nitrogen, of course,
`through our diet. And this is mainly through, of
`course, protein.
` So dietary therapy consists of minimizing the
`protein intake as best as we can while trying to still
`ensure growth and adequate development. So it's a
`cornerstone of therapy for urea cycle disorders.
` Q. And that was known in the prior art?
` A. Yes. That is something that is part of taking
`care of urea cycle patients. Dietary treatment is part
`of it. The treatment needs, of course, to be
`individualized for each patient.
` Medications are also used in conjunction with
`diet in some patients. And depending upon the urea
`cycle disorder, there are other types of supplements
`such as certain particular amino acids that can be used
`as well to help the urea cycle function.
` Q. How common was it prior to 2011 to use
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`17 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 18
`medications together with minimizing protein intake as
`treatment for urea cycle disorders?
` A. Yes. The combination of a special dietary
`therapy or especially a low-ish protein diet or a low
`protein diet, sometimes with the supplementation -- or
`commonly, I should say, with the supplementation of
`specific medical foods, is commonly used, with nitrogen
`scavenging medications and with the introduction of
`specific amino acids depending upon the patient.
` Some patients can respond only to dietary
`therapy; some will respond to dietary therapy plus the
`addition of, let's say, arginine as a supplement; and
`some will require, as well, medications. But it depends
`on the patient, and it depends on the overall clinical
`situation as well. But that combination or various
`combinations were used in the prior art.
` Q. And you agree that glycerol phenylbutyrate was
`known in the prior art, correct?
` A. Glycerol phenylbutyrate was known, as far as I
`recall, in the prior art. The use of glycerol
`phenylbutyrate was really the focus of the development
`of the inventions here where you're talking about,
`really, a method of administrating this new drug that is
`quite novel.
` Q. But the drug itself was not novel as of that
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`18 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`date?
` A. I don't recall specifically when glycerol
`phenylbutyrate was first mentioned in the literature. I
`think it is part of the prior art, but I would have to
`review the prior art to remember specifically when that
`date was.
` Q. Okay. As of the time glycerol phenylbutyrate
`was introduced into the marketplace, was it used in
`conjunction with restricting of dietary protein intake
`of a patient?
` MR. GREEN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: With any nitrogen scavenging
`medicine with any treatment of a urea cycle patient, the
`physician has to take into account the multiple facets
`available to him or her to treat the patient, including
`nitrogen scavenging medication, plus dietary
`restriction, plus amino acids, and plus sick day
`routines and other things would all be taken into
`consideration in treating patients.
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. Could you turn to page 30 of your declaration,
`which is Exhibit 2006?
` Do you see there's a section that starts --
`it's Section IX, and it says: "The Prior Art Does Not
`Disclose or Suggest Subject Matter of Claims 1 to 15"?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`19 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you reviewed the '278 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When was the first time you reviewed that?
` A. I don't recall the first time I reviewed the
`patent. I did look it over within the last week.
`But...
` Q. Okay. Do you know whether you reviewed it
`prior to signing your declaration that's Exhibit 2006?
` A. I would think that that would be part of my
`general process that was before that date, but precisely
`when I reviewed the patent, I don't recall.
` Q. What was the procedure for putting together
`the declaration that's Exhibit 2006?
` A. I'm not sure I understand "the procedure."
` Q. That wasn't a great question. Let me try
`again.
` Who actually wrote the declaration that's
`Exhibit 2006?
` A. Okay. I understand now.
` So this was a document prepared after
`discussion with attorneys. So of course I'm not an
`attorney, and there's much legalese in the document that
`I did not put forth.
` But the process was generally teleconferences
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`20 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 21
`to discuss my opinions related to the patent; then
`drafting an initial document; followed up by further
`iterations after I had a chance to review and look at
`the document and make sure my opinions were captured.
` Q. And you believe that all the statements in
`this document are accurate; is that right?
` A. I think that this is reflective of my overall
`opinion. I think that, again, this is something that
`has been put together last year, but it does reflect my
`opinions, yes.
` Q. Looking at paragraph 68, the last sentence
`says: "Substantially the same testimony and opinions as
`presented in the Section herein at paragraphs 67 to 89
`are also discussed in the Enns '559 Declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Why was that added to this declaration?
` A. I'm not sure why that was added to the
`declaration. This, again, is a bit of a feeling of a
`deja vu to me. I think this is a continuation patent,
`so I think my opinions haven't changed considerably. So
`I would imagine that that was something that was added
`because of that.
` Q. What did you mean when you said it's
`"deja vu"?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`21 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 22
` A. This is something, as far as my experience
`with the Horizon patents, I recall having been deposed
`on opinions related to this issue of half upper limit of
`normal in the past, for example.
` Q. So did you mean by that sentence that the
`opinions you were presenting with respect to the '278
`patent are substantially the same as the opinions you
`were presenting with respect to the '559 patent?
` A. That's most likely correct. I have not
`reviewed the '559 declaration in some time.
` However, my practice, as related to my
`patients and the general understanding of the prior art
`that I have, has not substantially been altered.
` Q. Turn to page 39 and paragraph 90. If you look
`at the last sentence there, you see the same
`statement -- or similar statement, I should say:
`"Substantially the same testimony and opinions as
`presented in paragraphs 90 to 115 in the declaration
`that's Exhibit 2006 are also discussed in the Enns '559
`Declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Okay. And is that, again, meant to say that
`the opinions you were offering in that section with
`respect to the '278 patent was substantially the same
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`22 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 23
`ones as you were offering with respect to the '559
`patent?
` A. I think that's generally correct. The '559 --
`well, I should say the other way around.
` The '278 represents a continuation of the
`'559, as I understand it, so my opinions are
`substantially similar.
` Q. What do you understand a continuation to mean?
` A. My understanding is limited as a physician.
` But I understand that there are certain time
`periods that patents have as far as, I guess, having a
`life span. And in order to continue having a
`patentability, a new patent that basically restates the
`old is put forward as a standard practice. But I don't
`have a detailed understanding of continuation.
` Q. But when you were offering your opinions in
`this case with respect to the '278 patent, was it your
`understanding that the claims of the '278 were
`substantially the same as the claims of the '559?
` A. I think that's most likely correct. I would
`have to review the '559 in greater detail because it's
`been quite some time since I looked at that patent
`specifically, but that sounds about right.
` Q. Sorry about that.
` I'm going to ask you the same thing with
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`23 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 24
`respect to the '966 patent. Is it your understanding
`that the claims in the '966 patent was substantially the
`same as those of the '559 patent?
` A. I -- my understanding is that the '966 claims
`also are substantially similar to the '559, as I recall.
` Q. When you were providing your opinions that are
`in Exhibit 2006, did you do an independent review of the
`prior art, or were you relying on what you had said
`previously in the declaration you submitted for the '559
`patent?
` A. I reviewed the prior art again to remind
`myself of specific details. I think I came to
`relatively similar conclusions, as I recall.
` However, I did have the opportunity to look at
`the prior art again and perform, yet again, another
`review. I didn't -- or I don't recall, I should say,
`reviewing the '559 as part of this process. So I think
`it was mostly looking at the prior art and looking at
`the articles that are referenced in new light, or I
`should say "again," just to refresh my memory.
` Q. What is the role of pancreatic lipases in urea
`cycle disorder?
` A. That's a pretty broad question, so I'm not
`exactly sure how to approach answering.
` Q. Okay. What are pancreatic lipases?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`24 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 25
` A. Pancreatic lipases are enzymes in the GI tract
`that are excreted by the pancreas to digest lipid fat.
` Q. And do pancreatic lipases digest glycerol
`phenylbutyrate?
` A. They can. I think that's what it's considered
`to -- or that's how glycerol phenylbutyrate is
`considered to be metabolized in the intestine. I'm not
`sure if there are other lipases or other cellular
`intestine lipases that are part of this process. But
`pancreatic lipases, I think, have been postulated to be
`part of the metabolism process for glycerol
`phenylbutyrate.
` Q. Turn to page 50 of Exhibit 2006.
` You see you have a section that's entitled "A
`POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine the '859
`Publication with Simell or Blau"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Turn to paragraph 116. You have a similar
`statement to the one we looked at previously. It says:
`"Substantially the same testimony and opinions as
`presented in the Section herein at paragraphs 116 to 127
`are also discussed in the Enns '559 Declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And, again, was that meant to say that your
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`25 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 26
`opinions with respect to the motivation to combine the
`'859 publication with Simell or Blau are substantially
`the same ones you offered with respect to the '559
`patent?
` A. I think that's correct, yes.
` Q. Would you turn to page 56, please.
` On page 56, there's a Section C that says:
`"No Reasonable Expectation that an Increased Dosage
`Would Lower a Patient's Baseline Ammonia and Ensure a
`Normal Plasma Ammonia over the Course of a Day."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you look at paragraph 128, there's
`another statement that says: "Substantially the same
`testimony and opinions as presented in the Section
`herein at paragraphs 128 to 130 are also discussed in
`the Enns '559 Declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And is that statement meant to say that your
`opinions, with respect to whether there would be a
`reasonable expectation that an increased dosage would
`lower a patient's baseline ammonia and ensure a normal
`plasma ammonia over the course of the day, are
`substantially the same as the one you offered with
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`26 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`respect to the '559 patent?
` A. I think that's also going to be correct. A
`patient's baseline ammonia levels, of course, are going
`to fluctuate tremendously, and that was known in the
`prior art.
` Q. And moving on to page 58, there's a Section D
`that says: "The Prior Art Did Not Disclose or Suggest
`Targeting a Plasma Ammonia Level Below Half the Upper
`Level of Normal."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then at the end of paragraph 131, you say:
`"Substantially the same testimony and opinions as
`presented in the Section herein at paragraphs 131 to 140
`are discussed in the Enns '559 Declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you mean by that sentence that your
`opinion that the prior art did not disclose or suggest
`targeting of plasma ammonia level below half the upper
`limit of normal, is substantially the same opinion as
`you provided with respect to the '559 patent?
` A. I think that's correct. There's nothing in
`the prior art to suggest a target of below half upper
`limit of normal.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`27 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
` Q. Could we take a short break?
` (Off the record at 8:46 a.m. and back on
` the record at 9:06 a.m.)
` (Whereupon Exhibit 2006 was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MS. HOLLAND:
` Q. Dr. Enns, I'm handing you what's been marked
`as Exhibit 2006 in the IPR2017-1160 which is on the '966
`patent.
` Have you seen this document before?
` A. This looks familiar, yes.
` Q. If you go to the last page, you'll see there's
`a date and a signature. Is that your signature?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you sign this declaration July 6,
`2017?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you turn to page 2 in paragraph 4? Can
`you confirm for me that all the materials you considered
`with respect to your opinions that are in Exhibit 2006
`in the 1160 IPR are listed in paragraph 4?
` A. I think this is correct and similar. I don't
`recall reviewing the petition. I may have before
`submitting this, but it's been a long time.
` I did review the declaration of Dr. Vaux and I
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`28 of 80
`
`
`
`Page 29
`did review prior art references as well, so I think this
`is correct.
` Q. Did you review the '966 patent? Do you recall
`doing that?
` A. I do recall doing that as well, yes.
` Q. Can you turn to page 29? In paragraph 68, you
`say: "Substantially the same testimony and opinions as
`presented in the Section herein at paragraph 67 to 88 is
`also discussed in the Enns '559 Declaration."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And by that, did you mean that your opinion
`that the prior art does not disclose increasing a dosage
`of glycerol phenylbutyrate in a patient with a plasma
`ammonia level between half the upper limit of normal and
`the upper limit of normal, is substantially the same as
`the opinion you offered with respect to the '559 patent?
` A. I think that sounds correct. There might be
`further details I may have added in the present
`document, but the overall opinion is similar to what you
`just stated, yes.
` Q. Do you have any particular details in mind
`when you said there were additional details that may
`hav