`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` CASE IPR 2015-01409
` Patent 5,886,035
`___________________________________
`MICRO LABS LIMITED and )
`MICRO LABS USA, INC., )
` Petitioners )
`vs. )
`SANTEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. )
`and ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD., )
` Patent Owner )
`____________________________________
`
` Videotaped Deposition of Mitchell E. DeLong
` Washington, D.C.
` February 13, 2018
` 9:06 a.m.
`
`Reported by: Bonnie L. Russo
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR Page 1/299
`
`Santen/Asahi Glass Exhibit 2025
`Micro Labs v. Santen Pharm. and Asahi Glass
`IPR2017-01434
`
`
`
`Page 2
`Videotaped Deposition of Mitchell A. DeLong
`held at:
`
` Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
` 1200 17th Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C.
`
`Pursuant to Notice, when were present on behalf
`of the respective parties:
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`2
`
`3456
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR Page 2/299
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
` CEDRIC TAN, Esq.
` SOPHIE WEI, Ph.D., Esq.
` ALTON HARE, Esq.
` PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
` 1200 17th Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` 202-663-8000
` cedric.tan@pillsburylaw.com
` sophie.wei@pillsburylaw.com
` alton.hare@@pillsburylaw.com
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
` ARLENE CHOW, Esq.
` ERNEST YAKOB, Ph.D., Esq.
` HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
` 875 Third Avenue
` New York, New York 10022
` 212-918-3000
` arlene.chow@hoganlovells.com
` ernest.yakob@hoganlovells.com
`
`Also Present:
`Aron Rose
`Daniel Russo, Videographer
`Solomon Francis, Videographer
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 3/299
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`EXAMINATION OF MITCHELL A. DeLONG PAGE
`BY MS. CHOW 7
` EXHIBITS
`Exhibit 2023 United States 42
` Patent 5,977,173
`
`PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS:
`Exhibit 1003 European Patent
` Application
` 0 639 563 A2
`Exhibit 1005 United States
` Patent 5,292,754
`Exhibit 1006 Patent Publication
` No. H7-70054
`Exhibit 1007 Article entitled
` "Fluoroprostaglandins:
` A New Class of Bioactive
` analogues of Natural
` Prostaglandins" by Bezuglov
`Exhibit 1008 Article entitled
` "Prostaglandins and
` Cardiovascular Diseases"
` by Bezuglov
`
`(Exhibits included with transcript.)
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`45
`
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR Page 4/299
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning.
` We are going on the record at 9:06
`a.m. on February 12, 2018.
` Please note that the microphones are
`sensitive and may pick up whispering and
`private conversations and cellular
`interference. Please turn off all cell phones
`or place them away from the microphones as they
`may interfere with the deposition audio. Audio
`and video recording will continue to take place
`unless all parties agree to go off the record.
` This is Media Unit 1 of the video
`recorded deposition of Dr. Mitchell DeLong,
`taken by counsel for Respondent in the matter
`of Micro Labs, Limited and Micro Labs USA,
`Incorporated, versus Santen Pharmaceutical
`Company, Ltd., and Asahi Glass Company, Ltd.,
`filed in the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office before the Patent and Trial Appeal
`Board.
` This deposition is being held at
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, located
`at 1200 17th Street, Northwest, Washington,
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 5/299
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`D.C.
` My name is Daniel Russo from the
`firm Veritext Legal Solutions. And I am the
`videographer. The court reporter is Bonnie
`Russo from the firm Veritext Legal Solutions.
` Counsel and all present in the room
`will now state their appearances and
`affiliations for the record.
` MS. CHOW: Arlene Chow of Hogan
`Lovells on behalf of patent owner Santen and
`Asahi Glass.
` MR. YAKOB: Ernest Yakob on behalf
`of patent owner Santen and Asahi Glass.
` MR. TAN: Cedric Tan with the law
`firm of Pillsbury here of behalf of petitioners
`Micro Labs Limited and Micro Labs USA.
` MS. WEI: Sophie Wei from Pillsbury,
`also on behalf of petitioners.
` MR. HARE: Alton Hare from Pillsbury
`Winthrop Shaw Pittman, and also on behalf of
`petitioners.
` DR. ROSE: Dr. Aron Rose.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court
`reporter please swear in the witness.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 6/299
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
` MITCHELL A. DELONG, Ph.D.,
` being first duly sworn, to tell the
`truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
`truth, testified as follows:
`
` MS. CHOW: I'd just like to state
`for the record that this deposition is being
`taken in relation to IPR 2017-01434.
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Can you please state your full name
`for the record.
` A. Mitchell Anthony DeLong.
` Q. And what is your address?
` A. Business address or home address?
` Q. Home.
` A. 2224 Pathway Drive, Chapel Hill,
`North Carolina.
` Q. Have you ever had your deposition
`taken before?
` A. I have.
` Q. On how many occasions?
` A. About six.
` Q. Were all of those depositions in
`relation to patent proceedings?
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 7/299
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And were all of those depositions in
`relation to patent proceedings where you were
`retained as an expert witness?
` A. Let me -- let me clarify. One
`deposition was -- was about the value of -- of
`patents, not the validity of patents. So
`although it was patents, it wasn't -- it wasn't
`like this where there's a question about, you
`know, what's in the patent. The question was
`more about the procedures around patents.
` Q. All right. So on five occasions out
`of six, you were deposed in relation to the
`validity of patents; is that right?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
`Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: That's not exactly
`correct. One of them was -- I was as an
`inventor.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Is that the one that you just
`referred to as the value --
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. So one patent in -- in
`relation to the value of the patent, one -- one
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 8/299
`
`
`
`Page 9
`deposition in relation to your being a named
`inventor; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then four depositions where you
`were retained as an expert witness opining on
`validity; is that right?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Sure. Yes. Yeah.
`That's fine.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Let me just first establish some
`ground rules, and then I'm going to follow up
`on -- on your answers just now.
` Do you understand that today you are
`here to testify both truthfully and accurately?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you taking any medication that
`would impact your ability to testify truthfully
`and accurately today?
` A. No.
` Q. Are you suffering from any illness
`or malady that would impact your ability to
`testify truthfully and accurately today?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Now, if you answer a question
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 9/299
`
`
`
`Page 10
`that I pose, is it fair to say that you
`understand how it is posed, meaning that you
`understand the question as posed?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the
`question.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. If you don't understand a question
`that I pose, will you seek clarity?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And if you answer a question
`that I pose, is it fair to say that then you
`understood it as posed?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I will always answer
`the question with my understanding of what the
`question posed means to me. I can't know for
`sure what it means to you, right? But as far
`as what it means to me, yes.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Okay. Now, you previously testified
`that you've been deposed on six occasions.
` Can you identify those proceedings
`to me, the parties at issue, let's say?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 10/299
`
`
`
`Page 11
` THE WITNESS: My understanding is
`that, due to confidentiality requirements, I
`can only discuss things that have been publicly
`disclosed.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. There have been three cases where
`you've testified publicly; is that right?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know all of
`the -- what -- what has been disclosed or what
`has not been disclosed.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Are you familiar with the Alcon
`Canada proceedings against Mylan, Appotex and
`Teva?
` A. Is that public knowledge?
` Q. You disclosed those proceedings in
`your report.
` A. Then yes.
` Q. Did you testify publicly in three
`Alcon Canada proceedings?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I gave a deposition in
`those cases.
` BY MS. CHOW:
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 11/299
`
`
`
`Page 12
` Q. What was at issue in those cases?
` A. There was some question about some
`patents.
` Q. What types of patents?
` A. Prostaglandin patents.
` Q. For what indication?
` A. I believe the indication was the
`treatment of glaucoma by reduction of
`intraocular pressure.
` Q. Was there a particular marketed drug
`that was at issue in the Alcon proceedings?
` A. I think there was a patent at issue.
` Q. What was the active ingredient of
`the drugs that were at issue in the Alcon
`Canada proceedings?
` A. So my testimony was only about
`drug -- about compounds and patents, not about
`commercial products.
` Q. What compounds were at issue in the
`Alcon Canada proceedings where you testified?
` MR. TAN: I'm going to make an
`objection that this is beyond the scope of his
`declaration and beyond the scope of his direct.
` THE WITNESS: The patents in the
`Canadian issue listed different molecules. It
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 12/299
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`was those molecules.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Did the Alcon Canada proceedings
`involve travoprost?
` A. As one of the molecules?
` Q. Yes.
` MR. TAN: Same objection.
` (Outside interruption.)
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the
`question.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Did the Alcon Canada proceedings
`where you testified implicate the travoprost
`molecule?
` MR. TAN: I'm going to make a
`continuing objection that this is beyond the
`scope of his declaration, beyond the scope of
`his direct.
` THE WITNESS: I don't remember if
`the word travoprost was used in the patents
`that were at issue. That -- that's why I'm
`hesitating. I don't remember if the word
`"travoprost" was actually used, if that makes
`sense, in the patents that were at issue.
` BY MS. CHOW:
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 13/299
`
`
`
`Page 14
` Q. Is it your understanding that Alcon
`has a travoprost PGF-2 alpha analogue product?
` A. Again, my expertise is not in
`marketed products. But yes, I -- I do
`understand that there's a marketed product that
`contains a molecule that is called travoprost.
` Q. And that is a PGF-2 alpha analogue;
`isn't that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, did the Alcon Canada
`proceedings where you testified implicate
`fluprostenol?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: One of the molecules
`that was discussed was the molecule that's
`called fluprostenol.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. And is fluprostenol a PGF-2 alpha
`analogue product?
` A. It is a PGF alpha analogue.
` Q. So both fluprostenol and travoprost
`are PGF-2 alpha derivatives; is that correct?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
` BY MS. CHOW:
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 14/299
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
` Q. They're analogues.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. In the Alcon Canada
`proceedings where you provided testimony, did
`you opine on the validity of the
`patents-at-issue?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
`Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: I gave expert
`testimony on what was known at the time the
`patents were filed.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. And what was the relevant time
`period?
` A. The early 1990s.
` Q. Did you provide testimony on behalf
`of Alcon in those proceedings?
` A. I don't understand the question. I
`gave testimony on behalf of the truth.
` Q. Which entity retained you as an
`expert in the proceedings involving Alcon
`Canada?
` A. I was retained by Smart & Biggar.
` Q. That's a law firm?
` A. Yes.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 15/299
`
`
`
`Page 16
` Q. Did Smart & Biggar represent Alcon
`Canada in the proceedings where you provided
`testimony?
` A. I believe so, yes. Alcon Canada.
` Q. And Alcon Canada was the patent
`holder in those Canadian proceedings where you
`provided testimony; isn't that correct?
` A. I don't know.
` Q. Why were the Alcon Canada
`proceedings brought against Mylan, Appotex and
`Teva?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I was not concerned
`with the origins of the dispute.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Is it your understanding that Mylan,
`Appotex and Teva are generic drug
`manufacturers?
` A. These days many pharmaceutical
`manufacturers market both name -- generic as
`well as patent-protected products. I think it
`would be overstatement to say that something --
`someone is only generic or only
`patent-protected products.
` Q. In the Alcon Canada proceedings, did
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 16/299
`
`
`
`Page 17
`you provide testimony to the effect that
`travoprost and fluprostenol were novel in
`relation to what was known in the prior art?
` A. I believe the details of my
`testimony are confidential.
` Q. Those Canadian proceedings are
`public, aren't they?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: My understanding is
`that my -- the details of my testimony were
`private, confidential. I signed a
`confidentiality agreement.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Was your testimony in an open court?
` A. No.
` Q. But you testified in a courtroom; is
`that correct?
` A. No.
` Q. Where did you testify, in a -- in --
`okay.
` A. I gave a deposition.
` Q. You gave a deposition. Okay.
` Now, you testified that you were
`deposed on six occasions, once in relation to
`the value of the patent, once as an inventor,
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 17/299
`
`
`
`Page 18
`and four times in relation to the validity of a
`patent; is that correct?
` A. As -- to the best of my knowledge,
`yes.
` Q. Do the Alcon Canada proceedings fall
`in the validity bucket?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't understand
`what you mean.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Well, do the three Alcon Canada
`depositions -- are they a subset of the four
`depositions where you addressed validity of a
`patent?
` MR. TAN: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: Can you read back to
`me what exactly I said?
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. I'm not going to scroll through
`this. I -- I --
` A. Well, then --
` Q. I think we've established that
`you've divided your six depositions into three
`-- I'm going to say, for a lack of better word,
`"buckets"; is that right?
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 18/299
`
`
`
`Page 19
` A. We do a have better words than
`buckets, right?
` Q. Three groups.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Is it fair to say that the Alcon
`Canada proceedings, your testimony did not
`relate to the value of a patent?
` A. Again, the details of my testimony
`are not public knowledge, right?
` Q. I'm just trying to understand
`just -- just generally what your testimony on
`behalf of the Alcon Canadian patent owner
`entailed.
` A. I didn't testify on behalf of
`anyone.
` Q. Are you refusing to answer any of
`these questions?
` A. No. I believe --
` MR. TAN: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: -- I answered the
`question.
` She asked me if I testified on
`behalf of somebody. And my job as an expert
`witness is not to testify on behalf of anyone.
` BY MS. CHOW:
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 19/299
`
`
`
`Page 20
` Q. Well, let's establish this: For the
`Alcon Canada proceedings, you were not an
`inventor of the patent-at-issue; is that fair?
` A. I cannot comment on that.
` MR. TAN: Again, objection. My
`continuing objection is that this is beyond the
`scope of his declaration and therefore beyond
`the scope of his direct.
` MS. CHOW: Counsel, this relates to
`PGF-2 alpha derivatives. So I think I'm -- I'm
`allowed liberty to explore his prior work in
`that area. But --
` MR. TAN: I disagree.
` MS. CHOW: -- if you're not --
` MR. TAN: And I make my objection on
`the record.
` MS. CHOW: Are you instructing him
`not to answer any question?
` MR. TAN: I have made no such
`objection.
` MS. CHOW: Okay. That's good.
`Moving on.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. On how many occasions have you
`provided an expert report in a patent
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 20/299
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`proceeding?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall the
`specific number.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Is it more than five times?
` A. I don't recall a specific number.
` Q. Is it less than ten?
` A. I don't recall a specific number.
` Q. What patents where you have been a
`named inventor have been involved in
`litigation?
` A. Litigation that's public?
` Q. Yes. The filing of litigation is
`public. There are docs.
` MR. TAN: Objection. He's not an
`attorney.
` THE WITNESS: I can't give you an
`answer because I don't have the expertise to
`let you know that.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Have you ever provided testimony in
`a courtroom --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- in relation to patents where you
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 21/299
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`were an inventor?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Was that courtroom closed from the
`public?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. So what patent -- strike
`that.
` Can you describe the patent where
`you were named as an inventor that was the
`subject of a courtroom proceeding?
` A. Can I describe it?
` Q. Yes.
` Did it relate to PGF-2 alpha
`analogue?
` A. Describes the contents?
` Q. Of the patent. The patent's public.
` A. Yes. I believe it's called the '049
`patent, if I'm remembering correctly.
` Q. Uh-huh. And what types of compounds
`were disclosed in that patent where you were a
`named inventor?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
`Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: The molecules were
`prostaglandin analogues.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 22/299
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. And what were the applications for
`those prostaglandin analogues in the patent
`where you were a named inventor?
` A. I would like to see the patent to
`refresh my memory.
` Q. Do you have no recollection?
` A. I would like to see the patent to
`refresh my memory.
` Q. For the patent where you provided
`testimony in court, were the prostaglandin
`analogues used to treat glaucoma?
` A. I don't understand your question.
` Q. Did the '049 patent where you were a
`named inventor implicate the treatment of
`glaucoma?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I'd like to see the
`patent to -- to review what the claims in the
`patent were.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Was the '049 patent a U.S. or
`Canadian patent?
` A. That's a U.S. patent.
` Q. Who was that patent assigned to?
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 23/299
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
` A. The current assignment?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Again, I don't know the current
`assignment. At the time of the lawsuit it was
`assigned to Allergan.
` Q. Does the '049 patent cover a drug
`that has been commercially released?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I was
`testifying over a patent issue not a commercial
`issue.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Is it your understanding that the
`'049 patent covers a commercially marketed drug
`product?
` A. Again, your -- your question is
`vague, whether it covers something or not.
` Could you repeat the question more
`specifically?
` Q. Is the '049 patent where you were a
`named inventor associated with a commercially
`marketed drug?
` A. Perhaps you could say is the
`molecule that's claimed in the patent currently
`part of a marketed formulated product.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 24/299
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
` Is that what you're asking?
` Q. Sure. So I'll ask that question.
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Does the '049 patent claim a
`molecule that is part of a marketed drug
`product?
` A. No.
` Q. Were you -- strike that.
` In the '049 patent proceeding, were
`you retained as an expert by lawyers
`representing Allergan?
` A. No.
` Q. Which company did those lawyers
`represent?
` A. I'm not sure which lawyers you're
`referring to.
` Q. Do you recall which law firm
`retained you?
` A. As an expert witness in that case?
` Q. Yes.
` A. There was no law firm. I was not
`retained as an expert witness in that case.
` Q. Ah. You were retained as an
`inventor. Okay.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 25/299
`
`
`
`Page 26
` So Allergan retained you as an
`inventor in that matter?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. You provided testimony as -- in your
`capacity as an inventor. Okay. I understand.
` Is that correct?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you rephrase the
`question.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. In the '049 patent proceeding, you
`provided testimony in your capacity as an
`inventor of the '049 patent, correct?
` A. As a named inventor, yes.
` Q. Have you consulted for Micro Labs in
`the past?
` So let me be a little more precise.
` Prior to being retained for this
`proceeding, have you consulted for Micro Labs?
` A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
` Q. Prior to being retained for this
`proceeding, have you consulted for Sandoz?
` A. Sando? Could you spell 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
`
`IPR Page 26/299
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
` Q. S-A-N-D-O-Z.
` A. Ah, Sandoz. I would have pronounced
`the Z.
` Not to the best of my knowledge.
` Q. Have you ever consulted for Santen
`Pharmaceuticals?
` A. I'm under a confidentiality
`agreement that doesn't allow me to comment on
`my interactions with Santen.
` Q. Do you have interactions with
`Santen?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I repeat my previous
`statement.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Have you ever consulted for Asahi
`Glass?
` A. Again, due to the nature of my
`confidentiality agreements, I can't confirm or
`deny any work with that company either.
` Q. Is that -- is your answer the same
`in relation to Oak Pharmaceuticals?
` A. No. I don't know anything about Oak
`Pharmaceuticals.
` Q. Who retained you to act as an expert
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 27/299
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`witness in this proceeding?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I
`understand the question.
` Are you asking about a law firm?
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Yes. Sure.
` Did Pillsbury retain you as an
`expert in this proceeding?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you ever worked with Pillsbury
`in the past in relation to patent matters?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever worked -- strike that.
` Have you worked on patent matters
`prior to this proceeding implicating Micro Labs
`before?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't understand
`what the word "implication" means.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Have you worked on patent matters
`involving Micro Labs before?
` A. Again, the question is vague.
`Patent matters worked with. That could mean
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 28/299
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`almost anything.
` Q. Have you ever been retained as an
`expert witness in a matter where Micro Labs was
`involved?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I have no idea
`what matters these companies may or may not be
`involved in and what agreements they have with
`each other. So I can't answer the question. I
`don't know.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Have you ever been retained by a law
`firm as an expert in a patent matter involving
`Micro Labs?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I repeat my
`previous answer to the same question. I don't
`know what -- I cannot -- I'm not a corporate
`person. I don't know what interactions
`companies might have with each other.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Have you ever been retained by a law
`firm in a patent matter where that law firm was
`representing Micro Labs?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 29/299
`
`
`
`Page 30
` THE WITNESS: Again, it is not my
`knowledge or expertise to know what lawyers are
`retained by what companies.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. So you don't understand right now,
`sitting here today, what company Pillsbury is
`representing in this action? Is that your
`testimony?
` MR. TAN: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: That's not my
`testimony.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Okay. So which -- which entity in
`this proceeding does Pillsbury represent?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: My understanding is --
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Pillsbury represents Micro Labs;
`isn't that right?
` A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
` Q. And Pillsbury represents Micro Labs,
`which is the petitioner in this proceeding; is
`that correct?
` A. I believe there are two petitions or
`maybe even three.
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 30/299
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
` Q. But is Micro Labs one of the
`petitioners in this proceeding where you are
`providing expert testimony?
` A. I believe so, yes.
` Q. Now, the Allergan patent proceeding
`where you provided testimony, was bimatoprost a
`subject of that proceeding?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
`Outside the scope of his direct.
` THE WITNESS: The patent '049 was
`the subject of the proceeding.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Is it '049, or is it '029?
` A. It could be '029.
` Q. Uh-huh. Now, did you provide
`testimony in that proceeding based on your time
`as a scientist at Proctor & Gamble?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I would have to see
`the transcript to be sure of what all was
`covered.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Were -- strike that.
` In the early 1990s did you work on
`bimatoprost while at Proctor & Gamble?
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 31/299
`
`
`
`Page 32
` A. The nature of my work at Proctor &
`Gamble is confidential.
` Q. But you provided testimony in an
`open courtroom as an inventor on a patent
`implicating bimatoprost; isn't that right?
` MR. TAN: Objection. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: I don't understand
`what you mean about "implicating." I testified
`in court as an inventor of -- as a named
`inventor on patent -- I guess it's '029.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Are you one of the inventors who
`discovered bimatoprost?
` A. I don't understand the question.
` Q. Are you a named inventor on a patent
`where bimatoprost is claimed?
` A. That's a different question.
` Q. It's a question that's posed.
` MR. TAN: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It's vague. It's
`unanswerable.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. Have you ever made the claim to have
`discovered bimatoprost?
` A. Again, vague. Please be specific in
`
`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
`
`IPR Page 32/299
`
`
`
`Page 33
`
`your questions.
` Q. What did you invent in the '029
`patent that was at issue in the Allergan
`proceeding?
` A. I would like to review the patent
`before I make any opinion about what was
`claimed and what was not claimed.
` Q. So sitting here today, you have no
`recollection as to the nature of your invention
`in relation to bimatoprost?
` MR. TAN: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: That completely
`misstrues [sic] my answer.
` BY MS. CHOW:
` Q. What did you invent?
` A. You're asking vague questions.