throbber
Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES,
`
`INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`IPR NO. 2017-01621
`
`IPR NO. 2017—01622
`
`The videotaped deposition of MAUREEN
`
`DONOVAN, Ph.D., called 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 Lynn A.
`
`McCauley, CSR No. 84-003268, RPR, a Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter of
`
`the State of Illinois, at
`
`35 West Wacker Drive, 47th Floor, Chicago, Illinois,
`
`on May 24, 2018, at 9:41 a.m.
`
`
`
`OD-dO'ILflub-UNI—i
`
`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 Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 1 of 156
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`PRESENT:
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
`
`35 West Wacker Drive
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`312—558-5600
`
`BY: KURT A. MATHAS, ESQ.
`
`kmathas@winston.com
`
`Appeared on behalf of Petitioner;
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`1700 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor
`
`Washington, D.C. 20006—3817
`
`202-973-8812
`
`BY: VERONICA S. ASCARRUNZ, ESQ.
`
`vascarrunz@wsgr.com
`
`Appeared on behalf of Patent Owner;
`
`and
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
`
`3000 K. Street, N.W., Suite 600
`
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`202-295-4044
`
`BY: NATASHA IYER, ESQ.
`
`niyer@foley.com
`
`Appeared on behalf of Patent Owner.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`MR.
`
`JEREMY MANGAN, Videographer.
`
`
`
`N
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 2 of 156
`
`

`

`I N D E X
`
`Page 3
`
`WITNESS:
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`EXAMINATION BY:
`
`MS. ASCARRUNZ
`
`MR. MATHAS
`
`PG
`
`LN
`
`5
`
`113
`
`10
`
`6
`
`EXHIBITS:
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`PG
`
`LN
`
`None Marked
`
`
`
`taco-405
`
`10
`
`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 Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES V. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 3 of 156
`
`

`

`ODHJO'ILflub-UNH
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the record.
`
`Today's date is May 24, 2018, and
`
`the time is now 9:41 a.m.
`
`This deposition is taking place at
`
`35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois.
`
`The caption of this case is Watson
`
`Laboratories, Inc. versus United Therapeutics.
`
`This case is being held in the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent and
`
`Trial Appeal Board.
`
`Today's witness is Maureen Donovan.
`
`Will attorneys please identify
`
`themselves.
`
`MS. ASCARRUNZ: My name is VEronica Ascarrunz
`
`from the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`
`in Washington, D.C.
`
`I'm here representing the patent
`
`owner. With me is my co-counsel from Foley &
`
`Lardner, Natasha Iyer, also in Washington, D.C.
`
`MR. MATHAS: Good morning. Kurt Mathas from
`
`Winston & Strawn on behalf of the petitioner, Watson
`
`Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Donovan.
`
`And joining me this morning are two
`
`summer associates from our office, Jacob Wilbers and
`
`
`
`Joe Anderson.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 4 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`ODHJO'ILfluB-UNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`
`please swear in the witness.
`
`Page 5
`
`(WHEREUPON,
`
`the witness was
`
`duly sworn.)
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`
`sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`EXAMINATION
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Good morning, Dr. Donovan.
`
`Good morning.
`
`You recall your first deposition in
`
`connection with the two IPRs at issue was taken last
`
`month; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Correct.
`
`Q.
`
`And at that deposition you answered my
`
`questions truthfully; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I did.
`
`And have you had an opportunity to review
`
`the transcript from that deposition?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I have.
`
`Q
`
`Recently?
`
`A.
`
`Relatively recently, yes.
`
`Are you aware of any incorrect testimony
`Q
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`1umrw.\.rt=.ritex’t.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 5 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`OD-dO'ILflub-UNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Page 6
`
`in that deposition?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`And, as with your earlier deposition in
`
`this matter, you understand that you are to answer my
`
`questions truthfully; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Correct. Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And, as before, please let me know if you
`
`don't understand any of my questions; and if you
`
`answer, I'll assume that you have understood: is that
`
`fair?
`
`A.
`
`That's fair.
`
`Q.
`
`You understand that there are two
`
`proceedings before the Patent -- the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office regarding two separate patents;
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`Correct.
`
`MS. ASCARRUNZ: Okay. And since those
`
`weren't read into the caption at the beginning,
`
`just
`
`for the record,
`
`those are case IPR No. 2017—01621 and
`
`case IPR 2017—01622.
`
`And, Kurt, as we did before, can we
`
`agree that this transcript will be used in connection
`
`with both of those proceedings.
`
`MR. MATHAS: We agree.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 6 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`ODHJO'ILflub-UNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 7
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Dr. Donovan, do you agree with me that
`
`your testimony in connection with both of those two
`
`cases is consistent?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And throughout the deposition today, as
`
`you heard, we‘ll be using this in connection with the
`
`two different patents.
`
`I will try to make clear when my
`
`questions relate only to one; is that fair?
`
`A.
`
`That's fine.
`
`Q.
`
`And I'll ask that if your answers depend
`
`on which patent we're talking about,
`
`to please also
`
`make that clear?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Thanks. Yep.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Have you spoken with anyone besides
`
`counsel in preparing for this deposition?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Do you know who Christopher Butler is?
`
`I‘m aware of a witness in this case who
`
`has been referred to as Mr. Butler.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Have you ever spoken with him?
`
`No.
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 7 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`CO-dO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 8
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`And you recall that there is a district
`
`court litigation between the two parties concerning
`
`the same patents: correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`And you were deposed in that proceeding
`
`Yes,
`
`I was.
`
`Have you had the opportunity to review
`
`your deposition from that proceeding recently?
`
`A. Meaning relatively recently.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Have you reviewed the patent owner
`
`response filed in connection with these IPRs?
`
`A.
`
`I reviewed something I recall being
`
`titled
`
`a patent owner response. There are a number
`
`of patent owner documents that I've seen that I -—
`
`you know, if there's a specific question or
`
`something,
`
`I don't remember which document is which,
`
`but I think I‘ve seen something titled "The Patent
`
`Owner Response."
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And have you reviewed a
`
`declaration from a Dr. Aaron Waxman in connection
`
`with the two IPRs?
`
`A.
`
`Not to my recollection.
`
`Have you reviewed a declaration from a
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`1umrw.\.rt=.ritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 8 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`OD-dO'ILflub-IIJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 9
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Dr. Richard Delvi
`
`(phonetic)
`
`in connection with the
`
`two declarations?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, I've reviewed that declaration.
`
`Do you -- so there were two declarations
`
`by Dr. Delvi.
`
`I'm trying to understand which -— do
`
`you know if you've seen one or two of those
`
`declarations?
`
`A.
`
`I'm not sure.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Fair enough.
`
`In the course of research in your
`
`professional capacity, do you regularly rely on
`
`research you perform in the European Union Community
`
`Register?
`
`A.
`
`I more typically rely on information
`
`that's available from the FDA being a U.S.-based
`
`organization.
`
`I'm certainly aware of the European
`
`Union and the EMA and their methodologies for drug
`
`approving, and so I would know to go look there if
`
`what I was looking for wasn't currently available as
`
`information at the FDA.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`I know at the last deposition we
`
`covered a large volume of materials.
`
`I'm going to
`
`put some of those in front of you, not to sort of
`
`overwhelm you, but just so you have them in front of
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`1«WW.\.rt=.ritex’t.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 9 of 156
`
`

`

`OD-dO'aLflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Page 10
`
`you if you need to reference them at any point, and
`
`you should be familiar with all of them so.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`MS. ASCARRUNZ: And, for the record,
`
`this
`
`will be Exhibit 1001 from Proceeding 2017-01621,
`
`which is U.S. Patent No. 9,358,240.
`
`And then Exhibit 1001 from IPR
`
`Proceeding 2017-01622. This one is U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,339,507.
`
`And then Exhibit 1002 from IPR
`
`Proceeding 2017-01621, titled "Expert Declaration of
`
`Maureen D. Donovan Ph.D."
`
`Exhibit 1002 from IPR proceeding
`
`2017-01622, entitled "Expert Declaration of Maureen
`
`D. Donovan Ph.D."
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`So I just want to make sure at the
`
`outset -— and you can take your time to glance
`
`through them —— you're familiar with these four
`
`documents; right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I am, yes.
`
`And in your declarations, which are both
`
`Exhibits 1002 there, you refer to combinations 1, 2,
`
`
`
`and 3 for the '240 patent; correct?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`1IWWIL\.rt=,1"itext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 10 of 156
`
`

`

`ODHJO'ILflub-UNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Page 11
`
`Q.
`
`And in connection with the '507 patent
`
`declaration you also rely on Combinations 1, 2, and
`
`3?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`And in Combination 3 for each of the
`
`proceedings you rely on what you called the EU
`
`Community Register; right?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And in Combination 2 for each of the
`
`proceedings you rely on what you called the
`
`OptiNeb-ir user manual; right?
`
`A.
`
`That's correct.
`
`Q.
`
`And you're also an expert for Watson in
`
`the district court proceeding between the parties
`
`related to these same patents: correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's correct.
`
`And in that proceeding you also offered
`
`opinions that the patents at issue here, which are
`
`Exhibits 1001 in front of you, are obvious; right?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And in that proceeding you also offered
`
`opinions based on the OptiNeb device as prior art;
`
`
`
`right?
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page11 0f156
`
`

`

`
`
`OD-dO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 12
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`I think —- and there's certainly
`
`discussion in that expert report about the OptiNeb
`
`device and some of the generations of OptiNeb.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And in that proceeding you also
`
`offered opinions based on the Venta-Neb device;
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I did.
`
`And in your professional experience
`
`before
`
`you were engaged by Watson to opine on these
`
`patents, you were not familiar with ventavis;
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`correct?
`
`Not distinctly, no.
`
`And you were not familiar with OptiNeb;
`
`A.
`
`Again, it was one of a number of devices.
`
`I probably was aware of it, but I didn't have any
`
`specific knowledge of it.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And before these proceedings you
`
`never came to be familiar with the features of the
`
`OptiNeb devices; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Not in detail.
`
`Q.
`
`And you've never seen an OptiNeb or a
`
`Venta—Neb device in person; correct?
`
`Not to my recollection.
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 12 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`ODHJO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 13
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`And you were not familiar from a
`
`professional standpoint with treprostinil before
`
`these proceedings; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Not in any specific research oriented
`
`sense.
`
`Q.
`
`And I think you mentioned earlier in
`
`response to one of my questions.
`
`You understand that there were
`
`multiple generations of OptiNeb device; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`And you understand that there the
`
`multiple generations of the Venta-Neb device:
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`I guess I'm less familiar with the
`
`generations of Venta—Neb device.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And you don't have any specific
`
`knowledge of whether the OptiNeb—ir was a single
`
`device versus having multiple models that were termed
`
`OptiNeb—ir; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Again, I would —— would need some further
`
`information to try to discern what —— what a brand
`
`name covered at any given time.
`
`Q.
`
`And without seeing that further
`
`information, do you know in the course of your work
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`WW.VeriteXt.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 13 of 156
`
`

`

`OD-dO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 14
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`in this proceedings whether that is the case?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I‘m sorry. Can you repeat the question?
`
`Sure. Let me rephrase it.
`
`Without further information do you
`
`have current knowledge of whether the OptiNeb-ir
`
`device encompasses a single device or multiple
`
`models?
`
`A. Well, I think it comes down to what
`
`you -- what
`
`-— what I might define as a model
`
`difference and what the designer of that device might
`
`determine to be a —- you know, a change in the
`
`current model or what I might discern to be a simple
`
`change in the current model that the —- a slight
`
`change in the current model that the —-
`
`the
`
`manufacturer decided to rename as a —— as a next
`
`generation.
`
`I think knowing what the changes
`
`were from the device from -— from known change to
`
`known change or discernable change to discernable
`
`change,
`
`I think is somewhat up to the person
`
`reviewing the change and the magnitude that that made
`
`a difference.
`
`So I'm —— I'm aware that the
`
`
`
`Nebu—Tec company named their devices slightly
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 14 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`OD-dO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 15
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`differently.
`
`Each of those devices has different
`
`capabilities.
`
`What's really a model change or
`
`whatever,
`
`I -— I would need more information and
`
`probably a -- I -— I may or may not reserve my own
`
`opinion on whether that was really deserving of a
`
`model change or not.
`
`Q.
`
`Are you aware of model numbers used by
`
`Nebu-Tec in connection with the OptiNeb-ir
`
`designation?
`
`A.
`
`Not specific model numbers without, you
`
`know,
`
`some sort of context for reference.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. You reviewed and relied to some
`
`extent on the prosecution histories for these two
`
`patents in connection with your opinions; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I did.
`
`And you are aware that during prosecution
`
`of the patents the examiner considered the Chaudry
`
`reference you rely on; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And you are aware that during prosecution
`
`of the patents the examiner considered the Venta-Neb
`
`device and ventavis; correct?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`WW.VeriteXt.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 15 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`CO-dO'ILflub-UNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 16
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`It's been quite awhile since I've
`
`reviewed the file history.
`
`I -- I just -- I don't
`
`remember.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So is it fair to say you also
`
`don't remember whether the examiner actually cited
`
`this art against the applications during prosecution?
`
`A.
`
`I guess I'd like to refer to the section
`
`where the examiner made comments about that art to
`
`refresh my memory.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Did you take into consideration in
`
`forming your opinions what the examiner stated in
`
`connection with certain prior art references?
`
`A.
`
`Oh,
`
`I certainly -— when I read the file
`
`histories,
`
`I certainly take into account what the
`
`examiner viewed, but the file histories represent a
`
`relatively reasonably long period of time with
`
`changes and so forth.
`
`I —— there were other things
`
`probably that the examiner had in front of them that
`
`aren't necessarily directly part of the file history
`
`so —— so, yeah, I certainly consider the comments of
`
`the examiner, but they're performing a job in a way
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`1umrw.\.rt=.ritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 16 of 156
`
`

`

`ODHJO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 17
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`that I'm unfamiliar with really what —- what the
`
`progress of that evaluation is, so I can‘t always say
`
`that at any given —- on any given page that what the
`
`examiner was determining at the time stays with me or
`
`really significantly informed my opinion.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Are ultrasonic nebulizers
`
`preferable to the air jet nebulizers?
`
`A.
`
`They're a different type of nebulizer.
`
`The ultrasonic nebulizer has its own
`
`attributes that a jet nebulizer doesn't.
`
`There are aspects of jet nebulizers
`
`that are distinct to what ultrasonic nebulizers are
`
`capable of.
`
`So each one has some attributes,
`
`each has drawbacks.
`
`There are -— there would be reasons
`
`why one would select an ultrasonic nebulizer. There
`
`would be reasons now post -— or now that there are
`
`availabilities of other types of nebulizers to select
`
`those.
`
`It's very much a —— a —— it's a
`
`situational evaluation of whether one might be
`
`considered better than the other for a particular
`
`
`
`application.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 17 of 156
`
`

`

`mquflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 18
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`And in 2006 were ultrasonic nebulizers
`
`preferable to air jet nebulizers?
`
`A.
`
`Again,
`
`I don't think that anybody would
`
`ever in a generalizable fashion say that they were
`
`always preferable over jet nebulizers.
`
`They had
`
`specific attributes to them. Many -- the portability
`
`of ultrasonic nebulizers compared to the portability
`
`of many of the jet nebulizers was a significant
`
`attribute, and patients appreciated that.
`
`So there are times where if one
`
`could use an ultrasonic nebulizer, you'd select that
`
`just because you knew that your patient population
`
`would like the opportunity to have something that‘s
`
`slightly smaller and more portable to carry with
`
`them. But that wouldn't always —- it doesn't mean
`
`that it's always better.
`
`Q.
`
`So based on your responses, is it fair to
`
`say that there would be times when jet nebulizers
`
`would be preferable over ultrasonic nebulizers under
`
`certain circumstances?
`
`A.
`
`You know, it varied dependent on the
`
`circumstance which -— how you'd evaluate which
`
`nebulizer to select based on what performance
`
`
`
`criteria you desired.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 18 of 156
`
`

`

`ODHJO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 19
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`But you're unwilling to say that
`
`ultrasonic nebulizers in 2006 were universally
`
`preferable to jet nebulizers?
`
`A.
`
`I think there -—
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I think there may be under certain
`
`criteria that nearly everybody would select a
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer.
`
`So if your criteria was based on
`
`portability, for example,
`
`I think in 2006 probably
`
`everybody would recognize that an ultrasonic
`
`nebulizer was -— was slightly smaller and more
`
`portable.
`
`It also was subject to more
`
`readily -- or it was more readily damaged by having
`
`it be portable, so there were some -— even some
`
`drawbacks with that.
`
`But, you know,
`
`I don't think that
`
`there was a lot of controversy on that portion of the
`
`functionality.
`
`But a number of the other aspects
`
`and, again, costs and ability to —— or the resistance
`
`
`
`to -- to mishap may have overweighed the portability
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`WW.VeriteXt.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 19 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`00-40301»:me
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 20
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`for a particular use.
`
`Q.
`
`I‘m sorry. What do you mean by
`
`resistance to mishap?
`
`A. Well, knocking it off of a table and not
`
`have -- and having to immediately replace it because
`
`it no longer worked.
`
`Q.
`
`In addition to portability, are there
`
`other considerations that would inform the selection
`
`of a jet versus ultrasonic nebulizer?
`
`A.
`
`I mean certainly there are other
`
`considerations, but we very quickly get into
`
`considering -— you need to know something about
`
`the -- why you're either considering comparing those
`
`two, what —- what is your intended purpose, what are
`
`your -— what are your goals for comparing them.
`
`So it's really hard just in the
`
`abstract to -— to say, well
`
`-— it's easy in the
`
`abstract to say, yes, you would compare them, but how
`
`you would compare them outside of a specific reason
`
`for comparing them is very difficult to do.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Nevertheless I'm going to ask you
`
`some questions —-
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`Q.
`-- trying to compare them.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`WW.VeriteXt.C0m
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 20 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`COHJO'ILflub-UNH
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 21
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Do ultrasonic nebulizers and air jet
`
`nebulizers differ in connection with considering
`
`output
`
`rate?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE
`
`WITNESS:
`
`A. Well,
`
`they have different design
`
`specifications, and so in the world of jet nebulizers
`
`there's probably a range of outputs.
`
`It may be very
`
`different if you —— that range may be narrowed for
`
`pharmaceutical nebulizers compared to other reasons
`
`you'd use a jet compressed air what was -- what is
`
`essentially a nebulizer.
`
`Same thing for ultrasonic
`
`nebulizers.
`
`So if you -- actually reask the
`
`question, and let me see if I can get to a more -— a
`
`more defined answer.
`
`Q.
`
`Sure.
`
`So the question was:
`
`Do ultrasonic
`
`nebulizers and air jet nebulizers differ in
`
`connection with considering output rate?
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`Same objection.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Yeah, again, I —— it's so dependent on
`
`their —-
`the design of the actual system and the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`wwveritextrom
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 21 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`OD-dO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`intended purpose for designing the system that
`
`they're pretty broad ranges that cover both of them
`
`Page 22
`
`regarding output rates.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Are there differences in how ultrasonic
`
`nebulizers and air jet nebulizers affect particle
`
`size?
`
`A. Well,
`
`they accomplish forming particles
`
`or droplets in different ways, so they —- like --
`
`they -- as far as nebulizers and ultrasonic -- or as
`
`far as jet nebulizers and ultrasonic nebulizers used
`
`for pulmonary inhalation, there's a particular size
`
`range that is oftentimes a goal to achieve, and so
`
`the -- those pieces of -- or those devices are
`
`intentionally designed to maximize the droplet size
`
`in the range that‘s deemed to be beneficial for
`
`pulmonary delivery.
`
`Whether they —- what the -- what the
`
`dist —— particle size distribution looks like and so
`
`forth around those is somewhat dependant on the
`
`actual type of nebulizer and how it was designed, so
`
`they -- they —-
`
`they differ in how each of them forms
`
`the droplets, so,
`
`therefore,
`
`there are different
`
`characteristics of those droplet particle size
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`1umrw.Vitaritextnzmm
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 22 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`00-40301»:me
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 23
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`distributions that's observed between them.
`
`Q.
`
`Are you aware of any difficulties
`
`ultrasonic nebulizers face in aerosolizing certain
`
`types of formulations?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I am aware of situations where it
`
`would be less likely for the particle size -- the
`
`desired particle size or droplet size to be emitted
`
`from an ultrasonic nebulizer. Similar to there are
`
`different -- there are other situations where fluids
`
`used in jet nebulizers that I would anticipate they
`
`would have -- they would be more challenging
`
`potentially to be able to develop into the desired
`
`particle size range from —- for a pharmaceutical use.
`
`Q.
`
`Are you aware of any situations with
`
`those challenges that are specific to ultrasonic
`
`nebulizers versus jet nebulizers?
`
`A.
`
`I've been aware of them at times because
`
`I lecture on the differences.
`
`I just can't bring to
`
`mind what the specific differences are at this
`
`moment.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`In your opinion is pulse
`
`nebulization preferable to continuous nebulization?
`
`A.
`
`Again, it depends on the use.
`
`It depends
`
`In -— I think in many situations the -—
`on the user.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 23 of 156
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`the ability not to have a -— a wasting of the aerosol
`
`being continuously produced to the environment or
`
`needing to add additional tubing or aspects to the
`
`device to capture that and redirect it back to the -—
`
`the -- the filled volume for nebulization is -- is
`
`certainly of benefit.
`
`So you need -— you need to do more
`
`things to capture an aerosol.
`
`So if you -- than if
`
`you didn‘t have that aerosol being formed
`
`continuously.
`
`So there are certainly —-
`
`there are
`
`certainly advantages both from a -— a device and
`
`environmental standpoint for having a -— a device
`
`that emits the desired aerosol when —— when you want
`
`it to and doesn't emit it when you're not able to use
`
`it.
`
`Q.
`
`And in your opinion —- in -— it's your
`
`opinion that continuous nebulization is never
`
`preferable to pulsed nebulization; correct?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Yeah,
`
`I don't think it was never
`
`preferable.
`
`
`
`00-40301an»:
`
`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 Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 24 of 156
`
`

`

`ODHJO'ILflub-UNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 25
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Q.
`
`In your opinion having a patient
`
`coordinate its breathing to the output and timing of
`
`a device is preferable to breath-actuated devices;
`
`right?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know that I've ever expressed
`
`that opinion either,
`
`that —— there are virtues of
`
`both.
`
`The design aspects of one are different than
`
`the design aspects of the other, so they certainly
`
`contribute to cost and so forth, but being able to
`
`assure that the patient —— for a nebulizer, for
`
`example, being able to assure that the patient
`
`inhales the medication when the device is delivering
`
`the medication is the essential portion.
`
`MS. ASCARRUNZ: Okay.
`
`I'm going to hand you
`
`another exhibit. And, for the record,
`
`this is
`
`Exhibit No. 1006 in both proceedings.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`And I see you're flipping through it, so
`
`I'll give you my question so you can keep it in mind
`
`when you flip.
`
`Do you recognize this exhibit?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`
`
`What is it?
`Q.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, IPR2017-01622
`
`Page 25 of 156
`
`

`

`ODHJO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 26
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`A.
`
`This is a —- I believe this is a
`
`translation -— yes. This is a translation of the
`
`OptiNeb-ir operating instructions.
`
`Q.
`
`Is this the reference you rely on for
`
`your Combination 2 as the OptiNeb-ir user manual?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, it is.
`
`Did you locate this reference, or was it
`
`provided to you by ocunsel?
`
`A.
`
`The -— the translation was provided to me
`
`by counsel.
`
`Q.
`
`And was the original German version
`
`located by you, or was it provided to you by counsel?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That was also provided by counsel.
`
`You offer opinions about what this manual
`
`teaches a POSA: correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`So I understand that, but my question —-
`
`and my question is going to be are -— but you're not
`
`offering an expert opinion that this exhibit
`
`qualifies as prior art under the law; correct?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know that I'm able to make that
`
`determination, but I am aware that -— that this
`
`device was available at the time that we‘re speaking,
`
`
`
`usually 2004, 2006 type dating; and so the device
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`1«WW.\.rt=.ritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 26 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`OD-dO'ILflub-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`Page 27
`
`was -- the device -- the OptiNeb device was being
`
`used.
`
`I know that the Nebu—Tec company was selling
`
`that device, was interested in having pharmaceutical
`
`companies and individuals use their devices; and so
`
`being able to obtain the user manual for a device
`
`that was commercially for sale, whether it was ——
`
`whether I accessed it, whether somebody accessed it,
`
`I didn't look for it in 2004, but it would have been
`
`easily obtainable.
`
`MS. ASCARRUNZ: Okay. That wasn't my
`
`question.
`
`And I move to strike it as not
`
`responsive.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Dr. Donovan,
`
`in your declarations do you
`
`offer an expert opinion that the OptiNeb user manual
`
`meetings the legal requirements of public
`
`accessibility?
`
`A. Well,
`
`in my opinion on Page —— or
`
`Paragraph 55 I believe ——
`
`Q. Which document are you looking at?
`
`A.
`
`Oh, I'm sorry.
`
`I'm looking at my expert
`
`declaration in the '50? case.
`
`So in Paragraph 55 I describe how
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`ww.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2108
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 27 of 156
`
`

`

`
`
`OD-dO'ILfluh-UJNH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 28
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`the -- the OptiNeb device is described in an abstract
`
`available publicly in the fall of 2000 —- and was
`
`presented in the fall of 2004 by a group of
`
`investigators, and then later in Paragraph 61 I
`
`describe that the OptiNeb device was detailed on the
`
`Nebu-Tec website by at least 2003 referring to a -—
`
`probably the same exhibit, different exhibit number,
`
`and I use the information provided to me by other
`
`witnesses who are able to assure that that
`
`information was available in that website in 2003.
`
`Q.
`
`So your answer to the question I asked
`
`is, yes,
`
`in your declarations you offer an expert
`
`opinion that the OptiNeb user manual meets the legal
`
`requirements of public accessibility?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Obj

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