throbber
IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 101
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`of pulmonary delivery in particular,
`
`reproducibility was certainly important, and
`
`there's always a question about even what‘s --
`
`what amount of drug emitted from any device
`
`what amount of that gets to the lungs. There's
`
`loss between the device,
`
`the mouth, and then
`
`subsequently the lungs, and many accept that
`
`the ability to accurately know the exact amount
`
`that got
`
`to the lungs is not something that we
`
`use to evaluate or derive dosing strategies or
`
`evaluate the particular system.
`
`It's the that
`
`it was presented in a fashion that it could
`
`have delivered the same amount each time the
`
`device was used.
`
`Q.
`
`Is there a teaching in Patton
`
`on how long a patient needs to inhale after
`
`they know that the bolus of medicine is ready
`
`for inhalation?
`
`A.
`
`My recollection is Patton
`
`doesn‘t describe the time, but the device is
`
`designed to contain -- the aerosol is emitted
`
`into a volume that is a volume that a typical
`
`user would be able to inhale under their use
`
`
`
`It's
`conditions with a single inhalation.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page101of201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`($403111
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 102
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`based on lung volume,
`
`in essence, but if for
`
`some patient it -- they weren't able to inhale
`
`that volume,
`
`that the opportunity to follow up
`
`with another breath is certainly part of the
`
`device design based on the valve system.
`
`The speed with which the
`
`person inhales, yOu know, how fast they inhale,
`
`whatever isn‘t described, and this device is
`
`intended to potentially even limit some the
`
`needs to specify those additional requirements
`
`that were known as part of other devices at the
`
`time.
`
`Q.
`
`Does Patton disclose an
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer?
`
`A.
`
`It's not my recollection that
`
`Patton included ultrasonic nebulizers.
`
`It's
`
`certainly in his initial summary of the
`
`invention he describes using a predetermined
`
`volume of gas usually air as the material that
`
`aerosolizes the drug-containing formulation,
`
`but later in the patent I know that there is
`
`other discussion of other ways to accomplish
`
`some of the workings of the invention he is
`
`
`
`describing, and I just don't remember among all
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageIOZof201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`(ID-403111
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 103
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`of the possible alternatives and directional
`
`changes and so forth whether he opens or openly
`
`describes that this might be further modified
`
`for use with an ultrasonic system.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. My question might have
`
`been too broad to be fair.
`
`So why don't we do
`
`it this way.
`
`If you could —— if I could
`
`direct your attention to paragraph 90 of your
`
`declaration.
`
`You state there that:
`
`"Patton
`
`teaches a system that generates aerosol using
`
`gas; i.e., a jet nebulizer."
`
`So do you understand Patton to
`
`be discussing the use of a jet nebulizer?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`in the same way a jet
`
`nebulizer uses a gas to form the aerosol that‘s
`
`intended to be inhaled, Patton also primarily
`
`describes the formation of an aerosol brought
`
`forth by a volume of gas, usually a compressed
`
`gas.
`
`So there -- that's where they are
`
`similar.
`
`
`
`The methodologies that
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageIOSof201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`ma-JGUI
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 104
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`traditional jet nebulizers use to form aerosols
`
`are not
`
`the same methodologies that Patton's
`
`description uses to form the aerosol.
`
`Q.
`
`I
`
`am not sure I understand.
`
`So are you saying that Patton
`
`does not teach the use of a jet nebulizer?
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`I
`
`am saying that both jet
`
`nebulizers and Patton's invention description
`
`describe using a gas,
`
`typically a compressed
`
`gas to form the aerosol. That's their
`
`similarity.
`
`The mechanism by which a jet
`
`nebulizer -— the traditional jet nebulizers
`
`form that aerosol is different than the
`
`mechanism by which the aerosol is formed by the
`
`gas described in the invention described in
`
`Patton.
`
`Q.
`
`Got it. Okay. And neither a
`
`traditional jet nebulizer or the device that's
`
`taught in Patton is an ultrasonic nebulizer,
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`As described in this paragraph
`
`what I mean by jet nebulizer, no,
`
`there's not
`
`an ultrasonic source, a sound source that‘s
`
`
`
`forming the aerosol, nor in most of the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page104of201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`mqmm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 105
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`description in Patton does he describe using an
`
`ultrasonic power or an ultrasonic energy source
`
`to form the aerosol.
`
`Q.
`
`You said most of the
`
`description in Patton does not describe using
`
`an ultrasonic power energy source.
`
`Is there any discussion in
`
`Patton that does talk about ultrasonic power?
`
`A.
`
`Again,
`
`I don't recall all of
`
`the details regarding other aspects of the
`
`invention.
`
`So I just don't know whether the
`
`word ultrasonic or ultrasound appears anywhere
`
`in the patent document, but it's certainly not
`
`the original design of the invention that‘s
`
`being described primarily in the document.
`
`Q.
`
`So we have been going 21
`
`minutes since we last talked about breaking.
`
`Is this a good time to break?
`
`A.
`
`It's a good time for me.
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the
`
`record.
`
`The time is 12:17 p.m.
`
`(WHEREUPON, a recess was had at
`
`12:17 p.m. until 1:23 p.m.)
`
`
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01621
`
`Page1050f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`mqmu-I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 106
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`record. This marks the beginning of media
`
`number 3.
`
`The time is now 1:23 p.m.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Dr. Donovan, when we were
`
`discussing Patton,
`
`I
`
`think we talked about
`
`the
`
`use of a compressor, correct?
`
`A.
`
`We were talking about
`
`compressed air and jets, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And it's your opinion
`
`that Patton teaches the use of a light and
`
`sound that is -— that meets the claim
`
`limitation for an opto-acoustical trigger,
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`Well, it has a light device, a
`
`sound device that signals the user.
`
`So, yes,
`
`it's an opto—acoustic device.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And do you consider it
`
`to be an opto-acoustical trigger?
`
`A.
`
`Well, it's a device that has a
`
`light and a sound.
`
`They have a meaning to the
`
`user based on the instructions, and so if you
`
`want to call that an opto-acoustic trigger, it
`
`can be viewed as an opto-acoustic trigger under
`
`
`
`that set of conditions.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page1060f201
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 107
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`I will come back to
`
`that.
`
`The light and the sound comes
`
`on immediately after the operation of the
`
`compressor ceases, correct?
`
`yes.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's how it's described,
`
`You agree with me that all of
`
`the claims of both patents require an
`
`opto-acoustical trigger, right?
`
`A.
`
`Well, based in the description
`
`in claim 1 that describes a pulsed ultrasonic
`
`nebulizer that aerosolizes -- oh, next one
`
`second
`
`sorry.
`
`THE COURT REPORTER: Wait,
`
`I'm
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I'm sorry.
`
`Said pulsed
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer comprising an
`
`opto-acoustic trigger as stated in claim 1 of
`
`both patents, and the fact that all of the rest
`
`of the claims are dependent
`
`to claim 1,
`
`there‘s
`
`a requirement for an opto-acoustic trigger.
`
`Ibbdl'OH
`woman
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David F eldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageIOYOf201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`(human
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 108
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And that applies to
`
`both patents, correct?
`
`A.
`
`It's my interpretation because
`
`of the dependency of the rest of the claims,
`
`yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you agree with me that the
`
`word trigger must itself mean something in the
`
`claims?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I don't think so.
`
`I don't
`
`recall in the specification where trigger is
`
`specifically defined in the terminology of the
`
`patent writer.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So let me ask it this
`
`way.
`
`Let's look at the '50? patent,
`
`and you see that claim 1 claims a kit for
`
`treating pulmonary hypertension comprising, and
`
`then has several paragraphs following?
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`
`
`The section labeled Romanette
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageIOSof201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 109
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`ii reads:
`
`"A pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer
`
`comprising an opto-acoustical trigger."
`
`Do you agree with me that
`
`claim 1 and,
`
`therefore, all claims of this
`
`patent by dependency require a pulsed
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer comprising an
`
`opto-acoustical trigger?
`
`A.
`
`I agree that that's what‘s
`
`stated in claim 1, Roman Numeral II.
`
`Q.
`
`The word trigger in that claim
`
`language, what does that mean to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art?
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`think the best synonym for
`
`that for a POSA would be the word indicator.
`
`Q.
`
`And it's your opinion that
`
`Patton expressly teaches the need and function
`
`of an opto-acoustical trigger, right?
`
`A.
`
`Well, Patton describes the
`
`usage of an opto-acoustic indicator in the
`
`device that he has designed as a way of
`
`demonstrating that the aerosol containing the
`
`medicament has been placed into the chamber.
`
`Q.
`
`The word trigger doesn't carry
`
`
`
`a specific -- it's not a term of art that‘s
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageIOQof201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`oo-qoxu'l
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 110
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`used in the art of inhalation therapies,
`
`correc
`
`t?
`
`A.
`
`Not in the art that I am most
`
`familiar, no.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And it's yOur opinion
`
`that,
`
`as used in the claims,
`
`the word trigger
`
`is synonymous with indicator?
`
`A.
`
`That's the way —— that's the
`
`synonym I use for that word, and I anticipate a
`
`number
`
`of other POSAs would use that term also
`
`or use
`
`that synonym also.
`
`Q.
`
`So in your opinion is any
`
`signal
`
`that would demonstrate to the patient
`
`that a
`
`inhale
`
`claims?
`
`device is ready for the patient to
`
`is a trigger within the meaning of the
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE
`
`WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`That can either -- restate
`
`that.
`
`I am going to have to ask you to break
`
`that down.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`In your opinion is a --
`
`
`
`is an indicator that demonstrates to the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page1100f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJMH
`m-deI
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 111
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`patient that a device is ready for the patient
`
`to inhale is a trigger within the meaning of
`
`the claims?
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`Same objection.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`I
`
`think, as I stated,
`
`when I read the descriptor for Roman Numeral
`
`II, my interpretation of the meaning of that is
`
`I could substitute the word indicator for
`
`trigger. That that was the intended meaning
`
`and no further meaning implied to some term the
`
`word used trigger.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Since we were focusing
`
`on the ‘507 patent, can I ask is it also your
`
`opinion with respect to the word trigger in the
`
`'240 patent that you cOuld substitute the word
`
`trigger for indicator and that would cover the
`
`intended meaning of the word?
`
`A.
`
`The phrase in the '240 patent
`
`is different than the phrase in the '507.
`
`So
`
`in this case said pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer
`
`comprising an opto-acoustic trigger which
`
`
`
`allows said human to Synchronize each breath to
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`PageI11 0f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`oo-qmu-I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 112
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`each pulse, and in the case of this phrase
`
`within this claim, yes, as a POSA, my equal
`
`interpretation to the word trigger is
`
`indicator.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`In paragraph 125 of
`
`your
`
`'240 declaration, you state that:
`
`"A POSA
`
`would be motivated to combine Voswinckel's
`
`teaching of a therapeutically efficacious
`
`treatment using a pulse nebulizer with Patton's
`
`teachings on reliability, precision, and
`
`efficiency."
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`Yes.
`
`Why would a POSA be motivated
`
`to combine those two references in that way?
`
`A.
`
`Well, because at the time it
`
`was well known in the art that there were human
`
`factors involved in the therapeutic efficacy of
`
`inhaled dosage forms, and there was a
`
`motivation to try to make the devices that were
`
`being used as -- as obvious and easy for
`
`patients to use them correctly as possible.
`
`And so including additional indicators that
`
`
`
`allowed the patient to use the device as
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageI120f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`mqmm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 113
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`designed was a motivation for everybody
`
`involved in pulmonary device development at the
`
`time.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Is there any statement
`
`in Voswinckel itself that provides a specific
`
`motivation to modify the nebulizer disclosed?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`there's nothing specific
`
`in the Circulation abstract, but even comparing
`
`the European Heart Journal abstract to the
`
`Circulation abstract, it's obvious that the ——
`
`that Voswinckel changed nebulizers.
`
`So he was
`
`certainly aware that one could select a
`
`different nebulizer for whatever purpose one
`
`needed to during a -- you know, during a series
`
`of investigations.
`
`So it doesn't expressly state
`
`that, but I
`
`think there's a clear indication
`
`that by just comparing those two abstracts,
`
`that Voswinckel and certainly others in the art
`
`were open to selecting a device where they were
`
`confident that that device was accomplishing
`
`
`
`they desired for patient treatment.
`what
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page1130f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`ma-JGUI
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 114
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So you referred to the
`
`European Heart JOurnal abstract, and what I am
`
`trying to do is focus just on your statement in
`
`paragraph 125 about a motivation to combine
`
`Voswinckel's teachings with Patton's teachings.
`
`So -- and I understand your
`
`testimony that you believe there are human
`
`factor considerations that a POSA would
`
`consider that would guide the motivation to
`
`combine those teachings in particular ways.
`
`Did I understand your testimony correctly?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`What
`
`I
`
`am trying to understand
`
`is is there a statement in either of those two
`
`references explicitly in Voswinckel or in
`
`Patton that motivates a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to modify one or the other to
`
`arrive at the invention that is claimed in the
`
`patents at issue?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Well, again, a POSA is -- is
`
`
`
`aware of the activities Surrounding device
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page114of201
`
`

`

`IbLAJI'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN,
`
`Ph.D.
`
`Page 115
`
`development for inhalation delivery, and
`
`certainly understood the teachings of Patton
`
`and some of the
`
`-- both the technology to form
`
`the aerosol and other portions of the device
`
`that Patton describes and their attributes and
`
`understands the attributes of other devices,
`
`some of which were more readily available
`
`potentially in particular regions.
`
`And as a result,
`
`there's a
`
`motivation from the POSA to always try to ——
`
`try to identify some of the best qualities of
`
`the art at the time and include them in a next
`
`stage in this case we are talking about
`
`devices.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So I understand you
`
`said there‘s a motivation from the POSA to
`
`always try to identify the best qualities of
`
`the art at the time,
`
`but my question is you
`
`don't identify an explicit statement in either
`
`of Voswinckel or Patton that directly invites a
`
`POSA to modify the teachings to combine them;
`
`is that right?
`
`
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`Object to the form.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page1150f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 116
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`the POSA would realize
`
`that the OptiNeb nebulizer family already had
`
`the physical capabilities to have an
`
`opto-acoustic trigger, and the device described
`
`in Patton describes that as a component of the
`
`device. And the POSA essentially is learning
`
`from Patton that -- and knew this likely even
`
`before Patton described it in the specific ——
`
`in the specific patent based on the fact that
`
`there were other devices available that used ——
`
`used lights, used sounds, used other things to
`
`indicate to patients how to use the device
`
`appropriately.
`
`So the motivation is that
`
`Patton describes using light and sound to
`
`indicate something about the dose being ready
`
`for the patient, and that‘s easily transferable
`
`to a different device that is easily capable of
`
`using those same sensory readouts to improve
`
`the ability of a patient to use that device
`
`correctly.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`
`
`Q.
`I understand your testimony.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page1160f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`mqmm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 117
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`I do. But that wasn't the question that I
`
`asked.
`
`So let me go about it this way.
`
`in the Voswinckel reference that invites a POSA
`
`Can you point to a statement
`
`to modify the device used in that reference in
`
`any way?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Again,
`
`the Voswinckel
`
`Circulation abstract is merely an abstract.
`
`It's a very abbreviated form of information
`
`that‘s being presented, but even in its very
`
`abbreviated form when I compare it to a similar
`
`abstract by a similar group of investigators,
`
`I
`
`already see that they have changed the
`
`nebulizer from a continuous nebulizer to a
`
`pulse nebulizer.
`
`It tells me that they are open
`
`to the opportunity of improvements or changes
`
`in a nebulizer to advantage some
`
`characteristics of those nebulizers for
`
`improved patient therapy, and knowing that
`
`there are other improvements from a human
`
`
`
`factors standpoint that could yet again improve
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageI170f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 118
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`the usefulness,
`
`the ability of patients to use
`
`the nebulizers correctly in an outpatient
`
`setting, not in the acute care setting that was
`
`described in the Voswinckel Circulation
`
`abstract, certainly there's a motivation to
`
`provide the -- the invention or the -- provide
`
`the best possible characteristics in any
`
`nebulizer to provide to a set of patients who
`
`are in need of a reproducible, accurate,
`
`at—home nebulizer system for an important
`
`therapy.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Is that motivation made
`
`explicit in the text of Voswinckel?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Again, a POSA doesn't need a
`
`specific text to direct them to --
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`And that wasn't my question.
`
`My question was --
`
`MR. MATHAS: Veronica, you have to
`
`let her answer.
`
`Then you can ask your question
`
`
`
`again if you don't like her answer.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageI180f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`($403111
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 119
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`So, again, a POSA doesn't need
`
`specific direction to take known information in
`
`the art and utilize it and combine it, and
`
`whether there‘s something actually specifically
`
`in an abstract an abbreviated description of a
`
`body of work that suggests that or not,
`
`that --
`
`a POSA doesn't need that.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`I understand that.
`
`I'm asking
`
`the question whether -- so I understand that
`
`it's your testimony that a POSA did have a
`
`motivation to combine those two references as
`
`you have indicated, and you've testified at
`
`length as to where you believe that motivation
`
`would reside in the considerations of a POSA.
`
`Is that a fair
`
`characterization of your testimony?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. All
`
`I am trying to
`
`establish is that that motivation was in the
`
`mind-set and considerations of a POSA and not
`
`in a sentence in one of these references.
`
`So I
`
`
`
`am asking you to identify is there a sentence
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`PageI190f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 120
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`in Voswinckel that provides a motivation to
`
`modify the device used in Voswinckel?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Asked and answered.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`There's not a specific
`
`sentence that -- in the Voswinckel Circulation
`
`abstract that describes anything about needing
`
`or desiring to change the device in their
`
`future studies.
`
`It doesn't necessarily mean
`
`that they —— they hadn't or another POSA
`
`wouldn‘t contemplate doing that.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Is there a specific
`
`statement or sentence in the Patton reference
`
`that invites a POSA to use the features
`
`described for the treatment of pulmonary
`
`hypertension?
`
`A.
`
`Well, again, Patton is open to
`
`the use of the device described in the '951
`
`patent application or however we want to refer
`
`to that. That his device provides a method to
`
`deliver a medicament by inhalation to reach the
`
`lungs of the patient which means that to a POSA
`
`
`
`that any treatment that a POSA would need to
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page1200f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 121
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`reach the lungs to achieve the treatment goal
`
`that the Patton device is capable of being
`
`utilized to do that.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`(Reporter Clarification.)
`
`Q.
`
`Earlier in your discussion of
`
`a POSA being motivated to modify the device
`
`used in Voswinckel, you referred to the
`
`Voswinckel Exhibit 1047 reference.
`
`Do you recall that discussion?
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`think I need to be reminded
`
`what the Voswinckel 1047 reference is.
`
`Q.
`
`Sometimes we refer to it as
`
`Voswinckel II, but it's the European Heart
`
`Journal.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`Can I
`
`take a look at
`
`that reference?
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`1046?
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`abstract.
`
`Did I -- sorry, 1046.
`
`So it's European Heart Journal
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`
`
`A.
`Okay. Yes. All right.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageIZ1of201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 122
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`Q.
`
`So when I asked you about
`
`the
`
`motivation in Voswinckel
`
`to modify the device,
`
`you told -- you referred me
`
`to this other
`
`Voswinckel reference and said that it tells you
`
`that they are open to the opportunity of
`
`improvements or changes in a nebulizer to
`
`advantage some characteristics of those
`
`nebulizers for improved patient therapy.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you recall that testimony?
`
`Yes.
`
`What does this reference which
`
`I will start referring to as Voswinckel II just
`
`for clarity of the record, tell you about the
`
`willingness of the investigators to improve ——
`
`to make improvements or changes to the
`
`nebulizer?
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`the Voswinckel II
`
`abstract describes the use of an OptiNeb
`
`ultrasound nebulizer and a six-minute
`
`inhalation exposure, and the Voswinckel
`
`American Heart Association abstract describes
`
`using three single breaths from a pulsed
`
`OptiNeb ultrasonic nebulizer, and it was
`
`
`
`certainly very well known in the field for
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page1220f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 123
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`nebulizer therapy that reducing the amount of
`
`time to achieve the dose needed for a patient
`
`was an important aspect of nebulizer therapy
`
`and patient adherence to nebulizer therapy.
`
`So moving from a six-minute
`
`nebulization to a three inhalation therapy
`
`whether that was accomplished exactly by a
`
`change in nebulizer or accomplished by other
`
`activities in addition was certainly something
`
`that Voswinckel demonstrates that groups were
`
`aware of and were in relatively similar
`
`timeframes evaluating the opportunity to use a
`
`device that provided a better user experience.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Now, you are aware that
`
`the single ground that the Board instituted for
`
`decision in this trial was the question ——
`
`speaking just to the '240 patent, was limited
`
`to the question of obviousness over Voswinckel
`
`in view of Patton and Ghofrani, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`In the '240 patent, yes.
`
`But it's your opinion that in
`
`part a motivation to combine those references
`
`is evidenced by Voswinckel II, correct?
`
`
`
`I don't need Voswinckel
`No,
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page1230f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`004mm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 124
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`II, but you were asking directly about specific
`
`statements in Voswinckel I, and because it's an
`
`abstract, it‘s a very short description of work
`
`conducted and has often times very little
`
`description about what other information the
`
`authors are thinking, and so I
`
`look to other
`
`evidence even from the same group to
`
`demonstrate that, yes,
`
`those other —-
`
`those
`
`investigators were thinking about other things
`
`to improve this therapy beyond just the mere
`
`words that are included in the written
`
`description in the abstract.
`
`Voswinckel II to come to the —— to come to the
`
`And so I don't need to rely on
`
`opinions that I did in the matter of the ‘50?
`
`or
`
`'240 patents. Merely use that as an obvious
`
`example of even whether it's -- whether
`
`something is actually stated clearly in an
`
`abstract.
`
`It was clear that even that same
`
`research group understood that that was a
`
`consideration and a motivation.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So because Voswinckel I
`
`is an abstract and it's a very short
`
`
`
`description of work conducted and has often
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`PageIZ4of201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`mqmm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 125
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`times very little description about what other
`
`information the authors are thinking, you
`
`looked to Voswinckel II to supplement that
`
`understanding, correct?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`No, that's not correct.
`
`I
`
`didn't need to look to Voswinckel II. We
`
`started discussing Voswinckel II because I was
`
`answering questions you were asking about
`
`specific statements included in the Voswinckel
`
`I abstract that would have described the
`
`author‘s thoughts, desires,
`
`I don't remember
`
`the wording about the nebulizer, and I provided
`
`you with actual evidence of what would be clear
`
`to a POSA that there -- that those
`
`investigators must have been thinking about
`
`issues regarding modifying the nebulizers being
`
`used because they demonstrated that they even
`
`did that in order to modify the dosing regimen
`
`that they used that was different between those
`
`two, but I don't need to rely on Voswinckel II
`
`for that.
`
`I was using that as an example to
`
`
`
`answer your questions.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Pa991250f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`oo-qoxu-I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 126
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Do you need to refer to
`
`Voswinckel II to understand the motivation of
`
`the Voswinckel I authors to modify the device
`
`disclosed therein?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`No. Again, a POSA understood
`
`that certainly at the time of the priority date
`
`of the '240 and the '50? patents it was well
`
`known that in evaluating human factors and
`
`improving the human interface with devices was
`
`an important
`
`thing to do in order to improve
`
`user -- improve the use of the device,
`
`improve
`
`the adherence to the design dosing strategies
`
`and so forth.
`
`It was -- POSA's were well
`
`aware of those issues and were motivated to try
`
`to find ways to improve devices to address
`
`human factors issues and improve patient
`
`interactions with devices.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Where in Voswinckel I
`
`
`
`is it said that three breaths are delivered in
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-0162‘I
`
`Pa991260f201
`
`

`

`IbLAJl'OH
`(ID-403111
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 127
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`less than six minutes?
`
`A.
`
`It doesn't -- let's see.
`
`Voswinckel
`
`I doesn't specifically indicate the
`
`timeframe over which the three breaths were
`
`taken, but a POSA reading this and, again, if
`
`it was -- if the ocCurrence or the
`
`description -- start over.
`
`If the methodology used by the
`
`investigators was going to differ significantly
`
`from what a reader of this abstract would be
`
`expected to understand,
`
`the authors typically
`
`make additional -- put in additional
`
`information into the abstract.
`
`So those
`
`methods are clear.
`
`So not having additional
`
`information indicates that a POSA is free to
`
`believe that this medication was dosed in the
`
`same way You would dose other medications with
`
`the OptiNeb ultrasound nebulizer which means
`
`three single breaths receiving the dose over a
`
`relatively short interval of time, certainly
`
`far less than six minutes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. We were talking about
`
`
`
`paragraph 125, and the last senten

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