throbber
Page 1
`
` 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.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket