Page 1
` 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
`
`
` 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
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
