throbber
Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES,
`
`INC.,
`
`)
`
`Petitioner,
`
`)IPR NO. 2017-01621
`
`vs.
`
`)IPR No. 2017—01622
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`)
`
`)
`
`The videotaped deposition of DEFOREST
`
`MCDUFF,
`
`Ph.D., called as a witness for
`
`examination,
`
`taken pursuant to the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States
`
`District Courts pertaining to the taking of
`
`depositions,
`
`taken before ANDREA L. KIM, a
`
`Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, CSR
`
`No. 84-3722, at Suite 4800, 35 West Wacker
`
`Drive,
`
`Chicago, Illinois, on the 6th day of
`
`April,
`
`A.D. 2018, at 9:37 a.m.
`
`
`
`mU'lIh-wMI-l
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page'lof297
`
`

`

`PRESENT:
`
`Appeared on behalf of the Petitioner:
`
`Page 2
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN,
`
`35 West Wacker Drive,
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`BY:
`
`KURT A. MATHAS, ESQ.
`
`kmathas@winston.com
`
`Appeared on behalf of Patent Owner:
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
`
`900 South Capital of Texas Highway,
`
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor,
`
`Austin, Texas 78746-5546
`
`BY:
`
`BOBBY DELAFIELD, ESQ.
`
`bdelafield@wsgr.com
`
`—and—
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,
`
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600,
`
`Washington, D.C. 2000?
`
`BY:
`
`STEPHEN B. MAEBIUS, ESQ.
`
`smaebius@foley.com,
`
`
`
`mmwaI-I
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David FeIdman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 2 of 297
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`MR. SCOT ZIARKO, Videographer.
`
`REPORTED BY:
`
`ANDREA L. KIM,
`
`Illinois CSR No. 34—3722.
`
`
`
`mdmtfiwaI-l
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1'?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20'
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24'
`
`25
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`wwxeritexmom
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 3 of 297
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`I N D E X
`
`WITNESS:
`
`PAGE:
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF,
`
`Ph.D.
`
`EXAM
`
`EXAM
`
`EXAM
`
`EXAM
`
`MR. DELAFIELD ..............
`
`6
`
`MR. MATHAS .................
`
`240
`
`MR. DELAFIELD ..............
`
`244
`
`MR. MATHAS .................
`
`246
`
`EXAM
`
`MR. DELAFIELD ..............
`
`246
`
`I N D E X
`
`EXHIBIT NUMBER
`
`MARKED
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1 Article titled Thinking
`
`190
`
`Economically about Commercial Success ........
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2 Copy of U.S. Patent 9,550.716..231
`
`3 Copy of U.S. Patent 8,410,121..234
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`4 Declaration of DeForest
`
`243
`
`McDuff, Ph.D.
`
`Case IPR2017-01621 .............
`
`25
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`David F eldman Worldwide
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`“wxeritextrom
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES V. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 4 of 297
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning.
`
`We are on the record. This is the video
`
`deposition of Dr. DeForest McDuff in the matter
`
`of Watson Laboratories, Inc., versus United
`
`Therapeutics Corporation. Today's date is
`
`April 6, 2018.
`
`The time is now approximately
`
`9:35 a.m.
`
`My name is Scot Ziarko.
`
`I am with
`
`David Feldman, and I am the videographer.
`
`The
`
`court reporter is Andrea Kim.
`
`Will counsel please identify
`
`yourselves for the record, and will the court
`
`reporter please swear in the witness.
`
`MR. DELAFIELD: Bobby Delafield
`
`with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati for
`
`patent owner and United Therapeutics.
`
`MR. MAEBIUS:
`
`Stephen Maebius from
`
`Foley & Lardner on behalf of patent owner
`
`United Therapeutics.
`
`MR. MATHAS: Good morning. Kurt
`
`Mathas, Winston & Strawn on behalf of the
`
`petitioner Watson Laboratories, Inc., and the
`
`witness, Dr. DeForest McDuff.
`
`
`
`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 5 of 297
`
`

`

`mmwaI-I
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 6
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`(WHEREUPON,
`
`the witness was duly
`
`sworn.)
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
`
`You may begin.
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.,
`
`called as a witness herein, having been first
`
`duly sworn, was examined and testified as
`
`follows:
`
`EXAMINAT ION
`
`BY MR. DELAFIELD:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning, Dr. McDuff.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Could you please state your
`
`full name for the record.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Robert DeForest McDuff.
`
`And I know you've been deposed
`
`before, but I want to go over just a few ground
`
`rules just as a reminder.
`
`The court reporter
`
`has
`
`the task of taking down all of our words,
`
`and so for every question I ask, if you could
`
`give a verbal response and not a head nod or
`
`uh—huh, and also because she has to take down
`
`every word, please wait until I finish my
`
`question, and I will wait until you finish your
`
`
`
`answer to ask the next question.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 6 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 7
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`Do you understand?
`
`Yes.
`
`Do you understand you are
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`obligated to tell the truth in response to my
`
`questions?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And do you understand that you
`
`must answer all of my questions unless yOur
`
`counsel instructs you not to?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's fine.
`
`If you need to take a break at
`
`any point time today, as long as a question is
`
`not pending, we can take a break.
`
`If for any
`
`reason -— is there any reason that would
`
`prevent you from giving your best answers in
`
`response to my questions today?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`Are you on any medication that
`
`would affect your testimony today?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`So approximately how many
`
`times have you worked as an expert witness in
`
`the past?
`
`
`
`I've submitted more than 50
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 7 of 297
`
`

`

`cum-bunk-
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 8
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`expert reports.
`
`I have been deposed around 40
`
`times, and then there are additional cases
`
`where I was retained but didn't submit an
`
`expert report or never got deposed.
`
`cases?
`
`cases?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Were all of those patent
`
`No.
`
`About what percent were patent
`
`It varies over time.
`
`It's
`
`probably between 50 and 80 percent ballpark.
`
`Q.
`
`And of those cases, about what
`
`percent were pharmaceutical patent cases?
`
`more .
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Ballpark around half, maybe
`
`Have you ever been a fact
`
`witness in a case?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`I have in one instance, yes.
`
`And what was that?
`
`I provided testimony as a fact
`
`witness in a dispute related to student
`
`cheating and my role at Academic Integrity
`
`Seminar.
`
`
`
`And what role did you play in
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 8 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 9
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`that case?
`
`A.
`
`I was a tutor to a student
`
`that was identified as potentially plagiarizing
`
`his
`
`answers, and so I provided factual
`
`information about that incident.
`
`Q.
`
`So you weren't accused of
`
`cheating?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`been excluded?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`instances?
`
`Correct.
`
`Okay. Has your testimony ever
`
`It has in some instances, yes.
`
`Can you describe those
`
`A.
`
`There was one instance
`
`relating to a reasonable royalty in an
`
`electronics case where my testimony was not
`
`permitted, and then there have been four or
`
`five instances where my testimony was
`
`challenged on a variety of issues, and most or
`
`at least the majority of my opinions were not
`
`excluded, but there was some aspect of my
`
`opinions that was not permitted.
`
`Q.
`
`So on the reasonable royalty
`
`
`
`case you mentioned, do you recall why your
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 9 of 297
`
`

`

`mmwaI-I
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 10
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`testimony was not permitted?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`there were two main
`
`issues there.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`What were those issues?
`
`The first related to a
`
`methodology for apportionment related to
`
`vehicle tracker technology related to a type of
`
`analysis called content analysis where one
`
`quantifies apportionment based on how
`
`frequently something occurs.
`
`The Court viewed
`
`that methodology in the context of that case as
`
`not appropriate.
`
`The second issue was a
`
`methodology in calibration related to
`
`bargaining -- bargaining models and how parties
`
`would negotiate in a hypothetical negotiation.
`
`That was a methodology that was not permitted
`
`by that Court.
`
`It was later challenged in
`
`subsequent courts and permitted, and I've since
`
`published peer—reviewed articles on both
`
`topics. That's a summary of what that was
`
`about.
`
`Q.
`
`0n the apportionment issue,
`
`
`
`was that apportionment of the value of patents?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 10 of 297
`
`

`

`qu'lIb-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`It was apportionment related
`
`Page 11
`
`to a reasonable royalty analysis.
`
`Q.
`
`Was the reasonable royalty
`
`analysis -— strike that.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Was it a patent case?
`
`It was, yes.
`
`So in that case did you
`
`provide testimony as to different values for
`
`different patents?
`
`A.
`
`I don't recall specifically
`
`how many patents there were or what
`
`the
`
`technology was not sitting here.
`
`Q.
`
`I am just trying to understand
`
`what you meant by apportionment if you were
`
`talking about your testimony giving value to
`
`certain patents over others.
`
`Is that what you did?
`
`A.
`
`Apportionment in a reasonable
`
`royalty context is about determining the
`
`contribution of a patent in a negotiation
`
`relative to other factors and how one goes
`
`about quantifying that.
`
`So it was a
`
`quantification process for determining that
`
`
`
`contribution.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David FeIdman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page11 0f297
`
`

`

`qu'lIb-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 12
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`So you determined the
`
`contribution to a reasonable royalty rate of
`
`certain patents, correct?
`
`yes.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`excluded?
`
`Generally I agree with that,
`
`And that testimony was
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That portion was, yes.
`
`Now you mentioned you have
`
`provided a number of opinions on pharmaceutical
`
`patent cases; is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`How many of those did you find
`
`that the pharmaceutical patent was not a
`
`commercial success?
`
`A.
`
`I don't have a count for you
`
`sitting here.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you know how many times you
`
`found that the pharmaceutical patent was a
`
`commercial success?
`
`A.
`
`I don't have a count for you.
`
`I‘m sorry.
`
`Q.
`
`Have you ever found that a
`
`
`
`pharmaceutical patent was a commercial success?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 12 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 13
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`I have, yes.
`
`Is it fair to say the majority
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`of the time you provide an opinion that the
`
`patents you are asked to opine about you find
`
`are not commercially successful?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know.
`
`It's hard to
`
`summarize in that way because it's not always
`
`an opinion that a certain patent is or isn't
`
`commercially successful. There's often a range
`
`of issues that I am evaluating in a particular
`
`case.
`
`I don't know that it's fair to describe
`
`it that way for each patent at issue.
`
`Q.
`
`Is it fair to say that you
`
`have found patents to lack commercial success
`
`more than you have found patents to have
`
`achieved commercial success?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object
`
`to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I don't really think about it
`
`as patents achieving commercial success or not.
`
`That‘s not the way I would describe it.
`
`BY MR. DELAFIELD:
`
`Q.
`
`You have provided opinion in
`
`
`
`this case about the commercial success of two
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 13 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 14
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`patents, correct?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I would describe it as
`
`commercial success as a secondary consideration
`
`that relates to non—obviousness of two patents.
`
`BY MR. DELAFIELD:
`
`Q.
`
`So isn't that an opinion about
`
`whether or not the patents in this case were
`
`commercially successful?
`
`A.
`
`I just wouldn't describe it
`
`that way.
`
`I don't think of patents themselves
`
`being commercially successful or not.
`
`Commercial success of a product and a
`
`technology is one factor that relates to
`
`obviousness of certain patents.
`
`Q.
`
`Let me put it a different way.
`
`Would you agree with me that the majority of
`
`the pharmaceutical patent cases that you have
`
`been involved with you have found that the
`
`secondary consideration of commercial success
`
`favored that the patent was obvious?
`
`A.
`
`I don't typically view my
`
`
`
`opinion as weighing that a patent is obvious or
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 14 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 15
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`not.
`
`It‘s more about does the evidence
`
`presented on commercial success as a secondary
`
`consideration support obviousness.
`
`Q.
`
`So is it fair to say that most
`
`pharmaceutical patent cases that you have been
`
`on you have found that the secondary
`
`consideration -— secondary consideration of
`
`commercial success favored obviousness?
`
`A.
`
`I don't think of it that way.
`
`It's not that the evidence favors obviousness.
`
`It's whether —-
`
`I perform an evaluation of
`
`whether the evidence should be used in favor of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`Q.
`
`In this case would you say
`
`that the commercial success of Tyvaso would be
`
`in favor of obviousness?
`
`A.
`
`I don't think of it that way.
`
`I don't think of a lack of commercial success
`
`as a secondary consideration favoring
`
`obviousness.
`
`It is just that the secondary
`
`consideration doesn't favor non—obviousness.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Isn't that a double negative?
`
`No, not as I think of it.
`
`
`
`So is it fair to say that in
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 15 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 16
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`the most
`
`-— most of the pharmaceutical patent
`
`cases that you have been on, you have found
`
`that the secondary consideration of commercial
`
`success does not favor non—obviousness?
`
`A.
`
`Would you mind reading the
`
`question, please.
`
`(WHEREUPON,
`
`the record was read
`
`by the reporter.)
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`What do you mean by most?
`
`BY MR. DELAFIELD:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`More than 50 percent.
`
`Looking at all of the cases,
`
`that's probably true.
`
`percent?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Would it be more than 75
`
`I don't know.
`
`So in all of the
`
`pharmaceutical patent cases you have been on,
`
`how often have you been retained by the brand
`
`side,
`
`the patent owner?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know.
`
`I don‘t have a
`
`specific number for you.
`
`
`
`Can you name a couple?
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 16 of 297
`
`

`

`mum-Lurch-
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 17
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`I mean,
`
`I can think of several
`
`examples.
`
`Q.
`
`Could you provide a couple of
`
`examples?
`
`A.
`
`So some cases that I have
`
`worked on would relate to being retained by the
`
`patent owner for the drugs Herceptin, Noxafil,
`
`Crestor.
`
`Those are some examples that come to
`
`mind.
`
`Q.
`
`For those three, did you
`
`provide an opinion about the commercial success
`
`of the patent?
`
`A.
`
`I think about it as commercial
`
`success as a secondary consideration.
`
`In two
`
`of the cases I was a consulting economist, and
`
`one of the cases I was a testifying expert.
`
`Q.
`
`Was your testimony related to
`
`commercial success?
`
`A.
`
`It was.
`
`It was put forth in
`
`support of a finding of commercial success as a
`
`secondary consideration.
`
`Q.
`
`You have been retained by
`
`Watson before, correct?
`
`
`
`Yes.
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page170f297
`
`

`

`qu'lIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 18
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`How often have you been
`
`retained by Watson?
`
`A.
`
`I don't have a specific count
`
`for you, several
`
`times.
`
`1'10.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Ten to 15 times?
`
`It's probably not that high,
`
`Did you meet with counsel in
`
`preparation for your deposition today?
`
`A.
`
`Q
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Who did you meet with?
`
`I met with Mr. Mathas.
`
`Did you meet with anyone else?
`
`No.
`
`For how long did you meet
`
`to
`
`prepare for your deposition?
`
`A.
`
`I met with Mr. Mathas for
`
`about three to four hours.
`
`Q.
`
`Now,
`
`throughout this
`
`deposition, you understand that you are here to
`
`testify on behalf of two cases, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And one is IPR 2017—01622, and
`
`
`
`the other is IPR 2017-01621, correct?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page180f297
`
`

`

`mmwaI-I
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 19
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`Yes, that's right.
`
`So throughout
`
`the deposition
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`unless I specify a specific case or a specific
`
`patent, you understand my question to pertain
`
`to both.
`
`Is that fair?
`
`I can do that, yes.
`
`And if your answer differs
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`based on one patent or the other in the two
`
`cases, will you provide different answers?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I will do my best to do so.
`
`And if you don't provide a
`
`different answer, your answer will be for both
`
`cases .
`
`Is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know how it works
`
`procedurally, but I'll do my best to answer as
`
`applicable to both cases.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. When were you first
`
`retained for these two cases?
`
`A.
`
`I believe it was in early
`
`2017.
`
`I don't have an exact date.
`
`Q.
`
`Approximately how many hours
`
`
`
`have you spent on these two cases so far?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 19 of 297
`
`

`

`cum-butch-
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`I don't have an exact estimate
`
`Page 20
`
`for you.
`
`It's probably greater than 20 hours,
`
`less than 80.
`
`Somewhere in that range.
`
`total?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`So between 20 and 80 hours
`
`It's very ballpark.
`
`I don‘t
`
`have specific recollection, but that seems like
`
`a likely range to me.
`
`Q.
`
`Other than counsel, have you
`
`spoken to anyone else about this deposition or
`
`either of these cases since the time you were
`
`retained?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I spoke with a member of
`
`my staff working at my direction. His name is
`
`Mr. Noah Brennan.
`
`Q.
`
`And what did you talk about
`
`with him?
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Brennan and I discussed
`
`the upcoming deposition, and he also assisted
`
`with the preparation of my declarations as part
`
`of our work on the case.
`
`Q.
`
`Did he write part of your
`
`declarations?
`
`
`
`He may have drafted certain
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 20 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 21
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`portions. Typically -— I don't remember
`
`exactly what parts he may or may not have
`
`drafted in these cases, but a typical work
`
`process would be that someone working at my
`
`direction may draft parts of the declaration
`
`that I later review and edit.
`
`He may have done
`
`so here.
`
`I simply don't recall.
`
`Q.
`
`Did he do any of the
`
`calculations that are presented in your
`
`declarations?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`He did assist with those, yes.
`
`Do you know approximately what
`
`percent of the calculations he performed?
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Brennan performed the
`
`majority of the calculations at my direction.
`
`I don't have a percentage for you, but most of
`
`the calculations he directly performed working
`
`with me.
`
`Q.
`
`What is Mr. Brennan‘s
`
`educational background?
`
`A.
`
`He has a Bachelor‘s Degree and
`
`a Master's Degree in development economics.
`
`Q.
`
`And how long has he worked
`
`
`
`with you?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 21 of 297
`
`

`

`mmanI-I
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 22
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`I am going to object
`
`to the form and this whole line of questioning
`
`but go ahead.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`He has worked with me at
`
`Insight Economics for about a year.
`
`He and I
`
`have also worked together at a previous
`
`employer for something like three or four years
`
`in addition to the one year at Insight.
`
`BY MR. DELAFIELD:
`
`Q.
`
`Did you start work on this
`
`case at your previous employer?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No,
`
`I don't believe so.
`
`Did you talk to any other
`
`expert in this case about —- strike that.
`
`Did you talk to any other
`
`expert retained by Watson about this case?
`
`A.
`
`No. Yet, as indicated in my
`
`declaration,
`
`I did review the declaration of
`
`Dr.
`
`Donovan .
`
`Q.
`
`But you didn't have any
`
`discussions with her?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`
`
`Did you exchange any emails or
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 22 of 297
`
`

`

`mum-Lurch-
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 23
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`any kind of correspondence with Dr. Donovan?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`(WHEREUPON,
`
`the document was
`
`tendered to the witness.)
`
`BY MR. DELAFIELD:
`
`Q.
`
`You have been handed what's
`
`been premarked as Exhibit 1055 for IPR
`
`2017-01622.
`
`(WHEREUPON,
`
`the document was
`
`tendered to the witness.)
`
`BY MR. DELAFIELD:
`
`Q.
`
`And you have also been handed
`
`what‘s been marked as Exhibit 1055 for IPR
`
`2017-01621.
`
`Turning first to the 01622 or
`
`for the '507 patent, if you understand that, do
`
`you recognize this document?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`declaration?
`
`Yes.
`
`Is this a copy of your
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It appears to be, yes.
`
`Is this a complete and
`
`accurate copy of your declaration?
`
`
`
`Sitting here skimming through
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 23 of 297
`
`

`

`cum-bunk-
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 24
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`it,
`
`it appears to be, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`If you could turn to page 25,
`
`is that your signature on the declaration?
`
`2017?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It is, yes.
`
`And you signed it June 21,
`
`Yes.
`
`How, you mentioned yOur
`
`assistant helped you write your declaration; is
`
`that correct?
`
`A.
`
`I don't believe that was my
`
`testimony, no.
`
`Q.
`
`No one helped you write this
`
`declaration?
`
`A.
`
`Well, as I've described,
`
`I
`
`don't have specific recollection of whether
`
`Mr.
`
`Brennan assisted with the drafting of the
`
`declaration. Often he does when I do work with
`
`him, but I just don't remember whether he did
`
`for this declaration specifically.
`
`Q.
`
`Did anyone else help you draft
`
`your declaration?
`
`A.
`
`I don't believe so, no.
`
`
`
`Counsel didn't help you draft
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page24of297
`
`

`

`qu'lIb-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 25
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`the declaration?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`You cite several articles in
`
`your declaration, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`I do, yes.
`
`Who found those articles?
`
`I did along with research
`
`support from Mr. Brennan.
`
`Q.
`
`Now, if you turn to page 26 of
`
`your declaration,
`
`this is the first page of
`
`your CV; is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And is this a true and
`
`accurate copy of your CV?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It is as of June 2017.
`
`Could you briefly go through
`
`your educational background.
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I have a Bachelor's
`
`Degree —— I have two Bachelor's Degrees form
`
`the University of Maryland at College Park, one
`
`in economics, and one in mathematics.
`
`I would
`
`note that there's a typo here in the CV.
`
`It
`
`says a Bachelor's of Arts in Economics and a
`
`
`
`Bachelor of Science in Economics. That's since
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 25 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 26
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`been corrected.
`
`It's a Bachelor of Science in
`
`Mathematics from the University of Maryland.
`
`I also have a Master's in
`
`Economics from Princeton University and a Ph.D.
`
`in Economics from Princeton University.
`
`Q.
`
`And what year did you obtain
`
`your Ph.D.?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`In 2009.
`
`I noticed in your declaration
`
`and your CV you did not put the year you
`
`graduated.
`
`put the year?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Is there any reason you didn‘t
`
`No.
`
`So as of 2009, did you
`
`consider yourself to be an expert in economics?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Did you consider yourself to
`
`be an expert in economics with respect to
`
`pharmaceutical patents?
`
`A.
`
`It would depend on what aspect
`
`of economic analysis I was evaluating.
`
`Some
`
`aspects definitely, yes. Others I would say I
`
`
`
`accumulated experience in the pharmaceutical
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 26 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'lIb-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 27
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`industry over time in my professional
`
`experience as a consultant.
`
`I don‘t know at
`
`what point I would consider myself an expert,
`
`but certainly for any case where I put myself
`
`forth as an expert and submitted an expert
`
`report and I felt qualified at that time.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you recall how long after
`
`receiving your Ph.D.
`
`that you provided expert
`
`testimony in a pharmaceutical patent case?
`
`A.
`
`Looking at page 34 of Exhibit
`
`1055 which is the last page of my CV,
`
`I do
`
`remember my first case which didn't relate to
`
`pharmaceuticals, but I testified as an expert
`
`with respect to patents. That was in 2009.
`
`So
`
`that was immediately following my graduation
`
`and earning my Ph.D., and then specifically as
`
`to pharmaceutical cases,
`
`the first one that
`
`comes to mind is number 34 which is listed on
`
`the previous page on page 32, UCB versus Teva.
`
`That would have been in the 2013 to 2014 range.
`
`1:
`
`of course, worked on a number of
`
`pharmaceutical cases as a consultant prior to
`
`that time.
`
`
`
`So the first pharmaceutical
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 27 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 28
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`patent case in which you provided expert
`
`opinions was in the 2013 to 2014 range?
`
`A.
`
`As a testifying expert,
`
`that‘s
`
`right. Prior to that, of course,
`
`I provided
`
`consulting expertise.
`
`Q.
`
`So you mentioned that you
`
`considered yourself an expert with respect to
`
`economics at the time you obtained your Ph.D.;
`
`is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`So would anyone with a Ph.D.
`
`in economics at the time of their graduation be
`
`an expert?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know.
`
`It depends on
`
`the context probably.
`
`It certainly is an
`
`advanced degree that has recognition of
`
`expertise?
`
`Q.
`
`What was the subject of your
`
`Ph.D. dissertation?
`
`A.
`
`The field was in applied
`
`micro—economics and financial economics, and
`
`the subject of my Ph.D. research related to
`
`financial markets in housing and real estate
`
`
`
`labor market decisions of
`and decisions of —-
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 28 of 297
`
`

`

`mUhwMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 29
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`students to attend colleges and universities.
`
`patents?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`So it was not related to
`
`The scope was not specific to
`
`patents. Yet certainly the expertise I
`
`developed does go into my education and
`
`experience as an expert that allows me to opine
`
`in patent cases.
`
`Q.
`
`But your Ph.D. dissertation
`
`was not related to patents, correct?
`
`A.
`
`It strikes me as the same
`
`question.
`
`I will provide the same answer.
`
`Q.
`
`Well, it is just yes or no.
`
`Did your Ph.D. dissertation
`
`discuss patents?
`
`A.
`
`It did not specifically
`
`discuss patents.
`
`Q.
`
`And your Ph.D. dissertation
`
`did not discuss pharmaceuticals, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Not specifically,
`
`I don't
`
`believe so.
`
`Q.
`
`During your education, did you
`
`take any courses on pharmaceutical patents ——
`
`
`
`related to pharmaceutical patents?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-0162‘I
`
`Page 29 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 30
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`Certainly my course work as a
`
`Ph.
`
`student does contribute to my expertise
`
`as an economist that I
`
`then apply to patent
`
`cases, but specifically with respect to
`
`pharmaceutical patents,
`
`the only class that
`
`comes to mind is a second year graduate course
`
`in health economics where we discussed, you
`
`know, pharmaceutical development and research,
`
`and I believe patents came up in that context.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you recall if whether a
`
`patent is valid or not came up in that context?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I don't remember.
`
`Do you recall whether
`
`analyzing commercial success of patents came up
`
`in that course?
`
`A.
`
`I don't believe it did.
`
`I
`
`don't recall.
`
`Q.
`
`You have never worked for a
`
`pharmaceutical company as a full—time job,
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`Not as an employee.
`
`I have as
`
`a consultant.
`
`Q.
`
`And you are not an expert in
`
`
`
`drug formulation, correct?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNlTED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01621
`
`Page 30 of 297
`
`

`

`mU'IIIh-wMH
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 31
`
`DEFOREST MCDUFF, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No, not as I think of it.
`
`And you are not an expert in
`
`inhalable drug delivery, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Not from a clinical
`
`perspective.
`
`I have analyzed aspects of that
`
`from an economic perspective here in this case.
`
`Q.
`
`But the technology involved
`
`with inhalable drug delivery, you are not an
`
`expert in the technology, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Not as a technical expert.
`
`I
`
`perform my work from the perspective of an
`
`economist.
`
`Q.
`
`And you are not an expert in
`
`FDA regulations, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Not in terms of specific
`
`expertise.
`
`It is something that frequently
`
`comes up in my work, and I evaluate from an
`
`economic perspective but not an area that I
`
`would claim independent expertise.
`
`Q.
`
`And you are not an expert in
`
`the treatment of pulmonary hypertension?
`
`A.
`
`Not from a clinical
`
`perspective, no.
`
`I am an economist.
`
`
`
`You are not an expert in
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.00m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2035
`WATSON LABORATO

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