Transcript of Conference Call
`
`Date: June 19, 2018
`Case: Pfizer, Inc. -v- Genentech, Inc. (PTAB)
`
`Planet Depos
`Phone: 888.433.3767
`Email:: transcripts@planetdepos.com
`www.planetdepos.com
`
`Pfizer v. Genentech
`
`IPR2017-01488
`Genentech Exhibit 2060
`
`WORLDWIDE COURT REPORTING | INTERPRETATION | TRIAL SERVICES
`
`

`

`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`
`1 (1 to 4)
`
`1
`
`3
`
` APPEARANCES
`
`
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
` KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
`
` BY: BENJAMIN LASKY, ESQ.
`
` 601 Lexington Avenue
`
` New York, New York 10022
`
`
`
`0
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` BEFORE JUDGE POLLOCK AND JUDGE YANG
`
` ---oOo---
`
`PFIZER, INC., :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` vs. : Nos. IPR2017-01488
` : IPR2017-01489
` :
`GENENTECH, INC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`________________________________ :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
` June 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Job No.:195342
`
`Pages:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
` WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE & DORR, LLP
`
` BY: ROBERT J. GUNTHER, JR., ESQ.
`
` ANDREW J. DANFORD, ESQ.
`
` KEITH SYVERSON, ESQ.
`
` 7 World Trade Center
`
` 250 Greenwich Street
`
` New York, New York 10007
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Reported by: Laura Axelsen, CSR 6173
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` ---oOo---
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
` JUDGE POLLOCK: IPR 20170488 and IPR 20701374.
`I'm Judge Pollock. Judge Yang is on the line. Who do
`we have on the line for Patent Owner Genentech?
` MR. GUNTHER: Good morning, Judge Pollock.
`Bob Gunther on the line. With me is Andrew Danford and
`Keith Syverson. We're all from the Wilmer Hale firm.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Good morning. Who do we have
`on the phone for petitioner?
` MR. LASKY: Good morning. This is Benjamin
`Lasky from Kirkland & Ellis for the petitioner.
`0
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Are there any other parties?
`11
` THE REPORTER: This is the court reporter.
`12
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Okay. Who retained the court
`13
`reporter?
`14
` MR. GUNTHER: This is Bob Gunther. The patent
`15
`owner retained the court reporter, and with your
`16
`permission, we'll file the transcript as an exhibit.
`17
` JUDGE POLLOCK: That would be excellent. I
`18
`understand that patent owner seeks authorization to file
`19
`a motion to strike relating to certain arguments,
`20
`Pfizer's May 25th, 2020 reply brief. Yesterday we
`21
`entertained a conference call where the petitioner,
`22
`Celltrion, raised similar challenges to the same patent
`23
`at issue here.
`24
` Mr. Gunther, is this the same issue you wish
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, on Tuesday, June 19, 2018
`
`at June 19, 2019 thereof, at 1:01 p.m., telephonically,
`
`with the Certified Shorthand Reporter being in
`
`Vacaville, California, before me, LAURA AXELSEN, a
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter, the following proceedings
`
`were had:
`
` ---oOo---
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1234567891
`
`2
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` BEFORE JUDGE POLLOCK AND JUDGE YANG
`
` ---oOo---
`
`PFIZER, INC., :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` vs. : Nos. IPR2017-01488
` : IPR2017-01489
` :
`GENENTECH, INC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`________________________________ :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` --oOo--
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`5
`
`to discuss with respect to the IPR 20170488 and IPR
`20701374?
` MR. GUNTHER: Yes, your Honor, it is, and what
`I would say is in addition to the argument relating to
`the 1989 Foote paper, which is Exhibit 1193, that's the
`issue that we had discussed yesterday with respect to
`Celltrion. We also have a second point that where we
`believe that, uhm, Pfizer has also injected a new
`argument relating to the call reference.
` And so what we're requesting, uhm, similar to
`what was ordered yesterday is the ability to file a
`10-page motion to strike in connection -- on Friday at
`the same time that we filed our motion to exclude and to
`be able to cover both of those grounds and, Judge
`Pollock, I'm happy to speak to both of those grounds, if
`that's appropriate.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Yes, please. Before we
`continue, Judge Yang informs me that I have been getting
`one of the case names wrong. So this is in relation to
`so IPR 201700488 and IPR 201700489. So the record is
`clear. Please continue, Mr. Gunther.
` MR. GUNTHER: Thank you, Judge Pollock. So
`our position is that with respect -- and I'll start with
`the Foote reference, that our request with respect to a
`motion to strike on the Foote reference really is very
`
`6
`
`similar to the argument that you heard yesterday with
`respect to Celltrion, but it's even stronger in this
`respect.
` Pfizer's expert in this case is Dr. Foote, the
`same Dr. Foote that is the lead author with respect to
`the 1989 Foote reference, which is Exhibit 1193. So at
`the time that he filed his petition, there was nothing
`said with respect to the -- to the Foote 1989 paper, and
`so our position is that the first time that this came
`into -- into these IPRs was during the redirect
`examination by Pfizer of Dr. Foote during his
`deposition, that -- that -- that reference was not
`raised during the patent owner's affirmative deposition
`of Dr. Foote.
` And the first time that we saw in writing what
`their position was with respect to the Foote 1989
`reference was in their reply, and they both in their
`reply at page 27, they talk about the Foote reference.
`It is under the heading of unexpected results, but they
`go broader than just talking about unexpected results,
`and they note, and -- and I'm quoting here from page 27
`of their reply in the -- in the 01488, uhm, reply they
`say, quote, "Notably, as patent owner acknowledged
`during prosecution, the, quote, prior art humanized
`antibodies, close quote, patent owner criticizes as
`
` Uhm, you know, as I pointed out, I think it
`goes beyond any argument that they are -- that that
`relates simply to secondary considerations, and the one
`thing I would say is there are multiple paragraphs --
`and this will be -- this will be laid out if the Board
`allows us to file the motion to strike.
` There are probably about 10 paragraphs in
`Dr. Foote's declaration that was submitted in support of
`their reply that talks about the Foote 1989 reference
`and very much in the context of arguing it as prior art
`0
`to the consensus sequence limitation claims.
`11
` The third thing, your Honor -- just two quick
`12
`more quick things in terms of the Foote reference and
`13
`then I'll stop, is that, you know, to the extent that
`14
`they're arguing, oh, you know, we had a right to do this
`15
`in connection with talking about unexpected results in
`16
`terms of secondary considerations, they raised
`17
`unexpected results in their petition.
`18
` In their paper number one, this is in the
`19
`1488, at 63 to 65, they talked about the issue of
`20
`unexpected results, and they certainly could have relied
`21
`on the Foote reference at that point had they -- had
`22
`they wanted to. They did not.
`23
` And then, finally, you know, they -- while
`24
`they -- while I expect that they will argue, as did
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`2 (5 to 8)
`
`immunogenic," and then they have a cite to our POR at
`page 66, described in the Reichmann 1998 paper, were
`made using the consensus approach.
` So they go on, and they're actually using, as
`did Celltrion, they're using for the first time in their
`reply the Foote 1989 paper in order to support their
`position that that reference is prior art to the
`consensus sequence limitation of the four consensus
`sequence claims in the '213 patent.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Gunther, does that apply
`to both the 1488 and the 1489 case?
` MR. GUNTHER: It is. That's correct, your
`Honor, and I gave you the quote with respect to their
`brief in the 1488, but they have similar language in
`their reply brief in the 1489 petition as well. And --
`and in their petition, your Honor, Pfizer relied on a
`different reference for this claim limitation. They
`relied on the Queen 1990 reference, which is
`Exhibit 1050.
` So we think that the switching from Queen 1990
`to Foote 1989 is inappropriate at this stage,
`particularly given the fact that -- that -- that
`Dr. Foote was their -- is their expert, and certainly
`this is something that was known to him and could have
`been put in their petition.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`9
`
`3 (9 to 12)
`
`11
`
`sort of makes clear that shifting arguments in this
`fashion is foreclosed by the statute are precedent in
`the Board's guidelines.
` So for that reason we would ask to have the
`ability to file a motion to strike with respect to the
`use of the Kurrle reference as prior art to the
`consensus sequence claims.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: All right. Mr. Lasky?
` MR. LASKY: Thank you, your Honor. Uhm, let
`me address the -- I guess the Foote -- it's been called
`the Foote issue, but if -- if one really looks at what
`they are asking for here, this is not really about the
`Foote reference. It's about evidence that the Campath
`antibody that is described in the Reichmann publication,
`which was relied on explicitly in the petition as
`showing state of the art, that that used a consensus
`sequence for the light chain.
` That's what they don't want you to hear, uhm,
`at the -- at the upcoming hearing. Now, uhm, although
`Mr. Gunther said that, uhm, that, uhm, you know, this
`issue is stronger with respect to Pfizer, with respect,
`I have read the transcript from yesterday's hearing,
`uhm, and, you know, acknowledging that the Board, your
`Honors, granted the request with respect to Celltrion,
`there are several key factors that Mr. Gunther omitted
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Celltrion, that they can cabin the Foote reference to
`only secondary considerations, I think that's difficult
`in view of the -- in view of the federal circuit cases,
`including the, uhm, Cyclobenzaprine case, and in
`addition, uhm, I think that the notion that -- that it
`can be cabined is inconsistent with the extensive use of
`footnote 1989 throughout Dr. Foote's reply declaration.
` So for those reasons we would ask that we have
`a right to file a motion to strike with respect to the
`Foote reference. Now I'll stop and see if your Honor --
`your Honors have any questions, but I do have the Kurrle
`thing that I want to pick up before we finish.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: No questions about your
`position on Foote. Let's talk about Kurrle.
` MR. GUNTHER: Okay. So here's the situation
`with Kurrle. Uhm, in the petition, in their petition,
`they did not reference the Kurrle reference or use the
`Kurrle reference as disclosing the consensus sequence
`limitations of the consensus sequence claims. The first
`time that came up is in their reply, and, for example,
`on the 1488 reply brief, and this is the first time we
`saw this was at pages 616 and 17.
` In their petitions, Pfizer argued that the
`consensus -- and I mentioned this before -- that the
`consensus sequence limitation was met by queen 1990.
`10
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`that we think push the close call that your Honors found
`They didn't say anything about Kurrle with respect to
`yesterday in favor, strongly in favor, of denying the
`the consensus sequence limitation. And here's an
`request here.
`example. If you look at the 1488 proceeding, if we
` The first, uhm, the first thing is that, uhm,
`consider their proposed grounds for institution in the
`Mr. Gunther omitted that in the materials and including
`petition, and this is paper one on page 6, ground one
`the Foote declaration that was submitted with the
`asserts certain claims anticipated by Kurrle. Notably
`petition, at paragraph 103, uhm, Dr. Foote, who had
`absent from that list of claims in the petition are the
`knowledge of this, explicitly stated that the Campath --
`claims that expressly recite the consensus sequence
`the light chain of the Campath antibody was derived not
`limitations. Those are claims 4, 33, 62, and 64.
`from an individual sequence, but from a consensus
` None of them were mentioned in connection with
`0
`sequence, which was based on identification of common
`the anticipation claim by Kurrle. They only relied on
`11
`and uncommon residues from Kabat in 1983.
`Queen 1990 in the 1489 proceeding. Kurrle was not --
`12
` So that was directly, uhm, relied upon in --
`that's the second IPR that we're talking about today.
`13
`in Foote's -- Dr. Foote's initial declaration cited in
`Kurrle was not even used as part of their prima facie
`14
`the petition, and this is a key distinction that we
`case of obviousness. They relied on that entirely in
`15
`understand from what is at play in the Celltrion case.
`the 1488, and if they had believed that in the 1489 that
`16
`Uhm, not only that, but Mr. Gunther himself was at
`Kurrle disclosed consensus sequence, our position is
`17
`Dr. Foote's deposition. He took Dr. Foote's deposition,
`they should have talked about that in their petition.
`18
`and he deposed Dr. Foote on that very paragraph.
` And, you know, rather than explaining how in
`19
` And he asked Dr. Foote, uhm, what, you know,
`its original petition, you know, that that was correct,
`20
`what the basis for that statement was, that it was a
`Pfizer's reply argument that Kurrle discloses a
`21
`consensus, and Dr. Foote explained that this sequence
`consensus sequence amounts to an entirely new theory of
`22
`was taken from his -- his own construct, and -- and this
`prima facie obviousness, and I just cite the Board to
`23
`was throughout his, uhm, normal -- his direct
`the WASICA Financial Case in the Federal Circuit, 853
`24
`examination, and in redirect he described that process,
`Fed 3rd 1272-1286 from 2017, that basically, you know,
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`

`

`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`13
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`which he introduced in paragraph 103, and he explained
`that the sequence in Campath was taken from his own
`anti-lysozyme construct, which was in the Foote
`reference, Exhibit 1193, and that Foote reference was
`introduced during the redirect at the deposition.
` And all of the evidence that he's -- that is
`being relied upon now, that Dr. Foote is relying upon
`now, was presented during that, uhm, deposition, which
`happened before the patent owner response occurred and
`before, uhm, Genentech put in its evidence, and you,
`know, its expert declaration.
` So that is the first key distinction from the
`Celltrion case addressed yesterday. Another key
`distinction is how, uhm, it is the -- that evidence is
`being relied upon, uhm, in the reply. Now, uhm,
`Mr. Gunther did not take you to pages 15 to 17 of the
`reply in his discussion of the Foote reference, and
`you'll see, if you go to the those pages, that that is
`where the consensus variable domain limitation is
`described in the obviousness analysis. And that is
`consistent with the petition, where we are arguing that
`Queen 1990 discloses that limitation, and the Foote
`reference is not mentioned.
` If you then go to page 27, which is where
`Mr. Gunther took you to, what he didn't explain is the
`
`4 (13 to 16)
`
`15
`
`the petition, discussed in the petition, and, therefore,
`squarely within these proceedings, even if it weren't,
`this argument and this evidence is directly responsive
`to -- to the, uhm, position, the factually incorrect
`position, that Genentech and its expert have taken, and
`what they want to do is they want to create a misleading
`picture of the state of the art and not let us correct
`that, and we think that's inappropriate, not only
`because --
` JUDGE POLLOCK: -- argument, Mr. Lasky. Why
`don't you tell me about Kurrle?
` MR. LASKY: With respect to Kurrle, again,
`Mr. Gunther did not point out the, uhm, discussion in
`the petition and in the Foote declaration regarding
`Kurrle. Uhm, if one looks at page 20 of the 1488
`petition, which is where we described Kurrle, the
`petition makes clear that Kurrle teaches the human
`framework residues could be switched to consensus
`sequence residues, according to the method in that
`reference, and that was supported by Dr. Foote, and --
`and he described that, uhm, in his opening declaration,
`Exhibit 1003, at paragraph 123.
` Now, this -- again, it's not -- this isn't a
`case where we're switching reliance on Queen 1990 for
`Kurrle. We're not seeking to do that. The ground is
`
`16
`Queen 1990 for these claims, but what -- what Genentech
`context in which that evidence is being placed, and that
`and its expert did in response is they said that the --
`is this: In the patent owner response and in the
`the consensus approach that they claim to have invented
`supporting expert declaration, Genentech argues that its
`is fundamentally different and has advantages over the
`consensus approach, which it claims to have invented,
`very best fit approach, and what we're doing and what
`was particularly advantageous, and in particular that it
`our expert is doing is pointing out that there is no
`was less immunogenic than the Campath antibody in
`fundamental difference between those approaches, and
`Reichmann, and which they say was a best fit, uhm,
`they, uhm, they can and do sometimes lead to the same
`approach rather than a consensus approach.
`results. And that is shown in Kurrle where all the
` That is simply wrong and -- and -- and we
`difference -- where Kurrle started with the best fit,
`should be entitled to point out that it's wrong. As we
`0
`looked at the differences between the best fit sequence
`note on page 27, as Dr. Foote mentioned in his opening
`11
`and the consensus, and changed all of those to mouse.
`declaration, as he mentioned at his deposition, as was
`12
` JUDGE POLLOCK: You talked about Kurrle being
`acknowledged during prosecution of the patent, which
`13
`cited in the 1488 petition. Where is it in the 1489?
`they also want to strike, the applicants knew the
`14
` MR. LASKY: Well, Kurrle -- Kurrle is not
`Campath was made using Dr. Foote's consensus sequence.
`15
`at -- is not a reference in the 1489 petition. It is --
` So this is not a case where we are saying,
`16
`it is an exhibit, but it's not a reference that we've
`okay, we're giving up on Queen 1990. We're changing to
`17
`relied upon as a ground, uhm, but, again, the reliance
`Foote, as Mr. Gunther represented. What we're pointing
`18
`here is responsive to the very same argument that
`out is, uhm, Genentech and its expert are factually
`19
`they've raised in the, uhm, 1489 petition, which is that
`incorrect when they try to compare their approach with
`20
`the best-fit approach by Queen, which is in the ground
`the Reichmann approach. And we couldn't have known they
`21
`in both petitions, is fundamentally different from
`were going to try to do that in the petition. So we
`22
`consensus.
`couldn't have rebutted that in our discussion of
`23
` JUDGE POLLOCK: What does Dr. Kurrle say about
`unexpected results.
`24
`the Kurrle reference in the 1489 case --
` This is even -- even though it is mentioned in
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`14
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`17
`
`5 (17 to 20)
`
`19
`
`identical to the, quote, consensus, close quote,
`approach that the '213 patent inventors used to humanize
`the 45 antibody, except that I used Kabat, K-a-b-a-t,
`1983 as the reference from my consensus human framework,
`while the '213 patent, '213 patent inventors claimed to
`have used Kabat," K-a-b-a-t, 1987, and then there's some
`cites.
` So you can see, your Honor, that they are
`going far beyond utilizing the Foote 1989 reference in
`the way that in -- I guess the limited way that I
`understand Mr. Lasky to have described during the
`portion of his argument, and so we think -- and, again,
`we're prepared to lay this out, why we think that that
`usage of Foote 1989 is inappropriate in terms of being
`new and should be stricken.
` In terms of Kurrle, uhm, I think, again, as I
`understand it, and I heard Mr. Lasky, that they're not
`walking away from their argument that Queen 1990 is what
`shows the consensus sequence element, but then it
`seemed -- it seemed, though, that what they're saying,
`if you look, for example, at the reply brief at 16 and
`17, pages 16 and 17 in the 1488, they're actually
`arguing that the Kurrle reference discloses using a
`consensus sequence, and we -- and I would just refer
`back to the fact that in the petition, while they -- in
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. LASKY: What does --
` JUDGE POLLOCK: -- in the original expert
`report?
` MR. LASKY: Okay. Uhm, let me -- let me
`address that. My understanding is the expert reports
`that were submitted for both proceedings were identical.
`So, uhm, Dr. Foote makes the same statement. I'll
`just -- I'll just confirm that for you, if you bear with
`me a minute. Sorry, your Honor. It's just -- it's just
`coming up on my system.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: That's all right. Take your
`time.
` MR. LASKY: Your Honor, indeed in the 1489,
`petition the declaration is the same. So at paragraph
`123, that's where -- that's where Dr. Foote notes
`Kurrle, uhm, discussing changing the human framework
`residue with the consensus human residue.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Is that testimony relied on in
`the 1489 petition?
` MR. LASKY: Let me check that, your Honor.
`Your Honor, I don't believe that testimony was directly
`cited. Again, this argument we're making here is not
`one of prima facie obviousness, but rather is -- is
`responding to the point made in the response that
`Queen's approach is fundamentally different from --
`
`18
`
`20
`
`the 1488, while they were using Kurrle for certain
`Queen's best fit approach is fundamentally different
`claims and arguing that it anticipated certain claims,
`from the time consensus approach.
`they did not identify Kurrle as being a reference that
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Mr. Gunther, would you like to
`anticipated or bore on the validity of any of the four
`respond?
`consensus claims 433, 62, and 64.
` MR. GUNTHER: Yes, Judge Pollock, and let me
` So, again, we're prepared to lay this out in
`start with the -- with the Foote 1989 reference. As I
`detail if we're permitted to file a motion to strike,
`understand Mr. Lasky's argument, he sort of -- to the
`but we believe that, again, that is new argument, and
`extent I get it, I think what he's saying is, well, we
`it's very new argument, and it's inappropriate at this
`were only really using Foote 1989 to explain or to give
`stage.
`more color to what was in the Reichmann article, but
`0
` MR. LASKY: May I briefly respond, your Honor?
`that's -- that is just not the case, and so, for
`11
` JUDGE POLLOCK: Certainly.
`example, if you look at paragraph 41 of Dr. Foote's
`12
` MR. LASKY: So just with respect to the, uhm,
`reply declaration in the 1488 -- this is at page 25 --
`13
`the last point on Kurrle, if you -- if one looks, and,
`it says, "For example, Dr. Wilson," that's our expert,
`14
`again, at pages 15 to 17, which is where we address the
`"makes no mention of my own work at this time, the
`15
`Queen 1990, where we address the consensus limitation,
`humanizing anti-lysozyme antibody, specifically as I
`16
`you'll see there that the affirmative discussion focuses
`later describe in Exhibit 1193, that's the Foote"
`17
`exclusively on Queen 1990 and the associated, uhm,
`reference, and I'll skip the rest of the citation.
`18
`testimony regarding that.
` Starting in 1986, "I identified the
`19
` Then we say, uhm, you know, that there is no
`anti-lysozyme as, quote, a more realistic target for
`20
`meaningful difference between the humanized antibody,
`humanization, close quote, and the anti-NP humanized by
`21
`which is, again, responding to the point that Wilson --
`Jones," that's another guy that was in Dr. Winter's lab,
`22
`Dr. Wilson makes, which is that these are, uhm -- that
`"and proceeded the humanize it." Then he goes on to say
`23
`these are fundamentally different approaches. And this,
`"and, indeed" -- I'm skipping a little bit, but "Indeed,
`24
`again, we're pointing both to Dr. Wilson's testimony,
`the approach I used to generate the light change was
`25
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`21
`where he admitted that, and Dr. Foote's testimony, which
`was -- which actually was elicited before they put in
`their patent owner response.
` With respect to Mr. Gunther's pointing to the
`portion of Dr. Foote's declaration about the Foote
`reference, what he didn't do here is follow that
`discussion through, and if you look at what -- what
`Dr. Foote is actually explaining is that as he described
`in his deposition, which, again, was before the patent
`owner response, the -- uhm, he describes again his
`anti-lysozyme consensus approach, and then he shows
`again how it is -- was used in the Campath antibody,
`and, in fact, in paragraph 42, he cites back to both his
`transcript and his initial declaration at paragraph 103
`where he discussed this.
` And what this is responding to is Dr. Wilson's
`discussion of the state of the art of humanized
`antibodies prior to the '213 patent invention where
`Dr. Wilson asserts that, uhm, the '213 patent invention
`was the first time a consensus approach was ever used
`and that the Reichmann Campath was made using a best
`fit. So here Dr. Foote is responding to that as he --
`as appropriate by, uhm, relying on the same positions he
`set forth in his opening declaration and during his
`deposition.
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6 (21 to 24)
`
`23
`
` CERTIFICATE
`
` I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
`Reporter for the state of California, hereby certify
`that the foregoing proceedings were reported by me, a
`disinterested person, and were thereafter transcribed
`under my direction into typewriting; that the foregoing
`is a full, complete, and true record of said proceedings
`as heard telephonically.
` Executed this 29th day of June, 2018.
`
`
`
` ___________________________
` LAURA AXELSEN, CSR NO. 6173
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
` JUDGE POLLOCK: All right. Gentlemen, it's
`been very interesting arguments, but this is too much to
`assimilate on the phone. Thank you very much for
`putting things in context. However, I think we need
`some briefing. Uhm, let's see. Mr. Gunther, are you --
`when can you have your motion to --
` MR. GUNTHER: Your Honor, we'd be prepared to
`file our motion to strike this Friday.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: All right. So we authorize
`patent owner to file a 10-page motion to strike on or
`before Friday, June 22, and we also authorize petitioner
`to file opposition on the same lines two weeks
`thereafter. Any issues or questions?
` MR. GUNTHER: Not from patent owner. Thank
`you, your Honor.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: All right.
` MR. LASKY: None from petitioner at this
`point. Thank you.
` JUDGE POLLOCK: I will get out an order within
`to next day or two, but this transcript will serve as
`the record.
` (The proceedings were adjourned at 1:32 p.m.)
`
`
` ---oOo---
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1234567891
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`A
`ability
`5:11, 11:5
`able
`5:14about
`6:18, 6:20,
`8:7, 8:9, 8:16,
`8:20, 9:13,
`9:14, 10:1,
`10:13, 10:18,
`11:12, 11:13,
`15:11, 16:13,
`16:24, 21:5
`absent
`10:7according
`15:19
`acknowledged
`6:23, 14:13
`acknowledging
`11:23
`actually
`7:4, 19:22,
`21:2, 21:8
`addition
`5:4, 9:5
`address
`11:10, 17:5,
`20:15, 20:16
`addressed
`13:13
`adjourned
`22:22
`admitted
`21:1advantageous
`14:5advantages
`16:4affirmative
`6:13, 20:17
`again
`15:12, 15:23,
`16:18, 17:22,
`19:12, 19:16,
`20:6, 20:8,
`
`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`appearances
`20:15, 20:22,
`20:25, 21:9,
`3:1applicants
`21:10, 21:12
`all
`14:14
`apply
`4:6, 11:8,
`13:6, 16:9,
`7:10approach
`16:12, 17:11,
`22:1, 22:9,
`7:3, 14:4,
`22:16
`14:8, 14:20,
`allows
`14:21, 16:3,
`8:6also
`16:5, 16:21,
`17:25, 18:1,
`5:7, 5:8,
`18:2, 18:25,
`14:14, 22:11
`19:2, 21:11,
`although
`21:20
`approaches
`11:19
`amounts
`16:7, 20:24
`appropriate
`10:22
`analysis
`5:16, 21:23
`argue
`13:20
`andrew
`8:25argued
`3:14, 4:5
`another
`9:23argues
`13:13, 18:22
`anti-lysozyme
`14:3arguing
`13:3, 18:16,
`18:20, 21:11
`8:10, 8:15,
`anti-np
`13:21, 19:23,
`18:21
`20:2argument
`antibodies
`6:25, 21:18
`5:4, 5:9, 6:1,
`antibody
`8:2, 10:21,
`15:3, 15:10,
`11:14, 12:9,
`16:19, 17:22,
`14:6, 18:16,
`18:7, 19:12,
`19:3, 20:21,
`19:18, 20:8,
`21:12
`anticipated
`20:9arguments
`10:6, 20:2,
`4:20, 11:1,
`20:4anticipation
`22:2art
`10:11
`any
`6:24, 7:7,
`8:10, 11:6,
`4:11, 8:2,
`11:16, 15:7,
`9:11, 20:4,
`21:17
`22:13
`article
`anything
`18:10
`10:1appeal
`ask
`9:8, 11:4
`1:2, 2:2
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`7
`
`asked
`12:20
`asking
`11:12
`asserts
`10:6, 21:19
`assimilate
`22:3associated
`20:18
`author
`6:5authorization
`4:19authorize
`22:9, 22:11
`avenue
`3:7away
`19:18
`axelsen
`1:26, 2:23,
`23:15
`B
`back
`19:25, 21:13
`based
`12:11
`basically
`10:25
`basis
`12:21
`bear
`17:8because
`15:9been
`5:18, 7:25,
`11:10, 22:2
`before
`1:2, 1:3, 2:2,
`2:3, 2:23, 5:17,
`9:12, 9:24,
`13:9, 13:10,
`21:2, 21:9,
`22:11
`being
`2:22, 13:7,
`
`

`

`13:15, 14:1,
`16:13, 19:14,
`20:3believe
`5:8, 17:21,
`20:8believed
`10:16
`benjamin
`3:6, 4:9
`best
`14:7, 16:5,
`16:10, 16:11,
`18:1, 21:21
`best-fit
`16:21
`between
`16:7, 16:11,
`20:21
`beyond
`8:2, 19:9
`bit
`18:24
`board
`1:2, 2:2, 8:5,
`10:23, 11:23
`board's
`11:3bob
`4:5, 4:15
`bore
`20:4both
`5:14, 5:15,
`6:17, 7:11,
`16:22, 17:6,
`20:25, 21:13
`brief
`4:21, 7:14,
`7:15, 9:21,
`19:21
`briefing
`22:5briefly
`20:11
`broader
`6:20
`cabin
`9:1
`
`C
`
`Transcript of Conference Call
`Conducted on June 19, 2018
`cabined
`challenges
`9:6california
`4:23change
`2:23, 23:4
`18:25
`call
`changed
`4:22, 5:9, 12:1
`16:12
`called
`changing
`11:10
`14:17, 17:16
`came
`check
`6:9, 9:20
`17:20
`campath
`circuit
`11:13, 12:8,
`9:3, 10:24
`citation
`12:9, 13:2,
`14:6, 14:15,
`18:18
`cite
`21:12, 21:21
`can
`7:1, 10:23
`cited
`9:1, 9:6, 16:8,
`19:8, 22:6
`12:14, 16:14,
`case
`17:22
`cites
`5:19, 6:4,
`7:11, 9:4,
`19:7, 21:13
`claim
`10:15, 10:24,
`12:16, 13:13,
`7:17, 10:11,
`14:16, 15:24,
`16:3claimed
`16:25, 18:11
`cases
`19:5claims
`9:3celltrion
`7:9, 8:11,
`4:23, 5:7, 6:2,
`9:19, 10:6,
`7:5, 9:1, 11:24,
`10:7, 10:8,
`12:16, 13:13
`10:9, 11:7,
`center
`14:4, 16:1,
`3:16certain
`20:2, 20:5
`clear
`4:20, 10:6,
`5:21, 11:1,
`20:1, 20:2
`15:17
`certainly
`close
`7:23, 8:21,
`6:25, 12:1,
`20:12
`18:21, 19:1
`certificate
`color
`23:1certified
`18:10
`coming
`2:22, 2:24,
`17:10
`common
`23:3certify
`12:11
`compare
`23:4chain
`14:20
`complete
`11:17, 12:9
`23:8
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`8
`
`conference
`4:22confirm
`17:8connection
`5:12, 8:16,
`10:10
`consensus
`7:3, 7:8, 8:11,
`9:18, 9:19,
`9:24, 9:25,
`10:2, 10:8,
`10:17, 10:22,
`11:7, 11:16,
`12:10, 12:22,
`13:19, 14:4,
`14