Page 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
` _________________________
` )
` HORIZON PHARMA, INC., )
` HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC.,) Civil Action Nos.:
` and POZEN INC, )
` ) 3:15-cv-03324 (MLC)(DEA)
` Plaintiffs, )
` ) 3:16-cv-04918 (MLC)(DEA)
` vs. )
` ) 3:16-cv-09035 (MLC)(DEA)
` DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES )
` INC. and DR. REDDY'S )
` LABORATORIES, )
` )
` Defendants. )
` _________________________)
`
` CAPTION CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF EVERARDUS ORLEMANS, Ph.D.
` Chapel Hill, North Carolina
` Thursday, October 12, 2017
`
` Reported by: Cindy A. Hayden, RMR-CRR
`
`Job No. 132124
`
`12
`
`3
`
`45
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
` _________________________
` )
` HORIZON PHARMA, INC., )
` HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC.,) Civil Action Nos.:
` and POZEN INC, )
` ) 3:15-cv-03324 (MLC)(DEA)
` Plaintiffs, )
` ) 3:16-cv-04918 (MLC)(DEA)
` vs. )
` ) 3:16-cv-09035 (MLC)(DEA)
` DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES )
` INC. and DR. REDDY'S )
` LABORATORIES, )
` )
` Defendants. )
` _________________________)
`
` CAPTION CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF EVERARDUS ORLEMANS, Ph.D.
` Chapel Hill, North Carolina
` Thursday, October 12, 2017
`
` Reported by: Cindy A. Hayden, RMR-CRR
`
`Job No. 132124
`
`12
`
`3
`
`45
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`_________________________
` )
`HORIZON PHARMA, INC., )
`HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC. ) Civil Action Nos.:
`and POZEN INC., )
` ) 3:15-cv-03327 (MLC)(DEA)
` Plaintiffs, )
` ) 3:16-cv-04921 (MLC)(DEA)
`vs. )
` )
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS )
`INC., MYLAN LABORATORIES )
`LIMITED, and MYLAN INC., )
` )
` Defendants. )
`_________________________)
` )
`HORIZON PHARMA, INC., )
`HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC. )
`and POZEN INC., ) Civil Action Nos.:
` )
` Plaintiffs, ) 3:15-cv-03326 (MLC) (DEA)
` ) 3:16-cv-04920 (MLC) (DEA)
`vs. )
` )
`LUPIN LTD., and, )
`LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS )
`INC., )
` Defendants. )
`_________________________)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` October 12, 2017
` 9:08 a.m.
`
` Videotaped Deposition of Everardus Orlemans,
`Ph.D., held at Courtyard Chapel Hill, 100
`Marriott Way, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
`pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`before Cindy A. Hayden, a Registered Merit
`Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Notary
`Public of the State of North Carolina, who
`officiated in administering the oath to the
`witness.
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`On behalf of Plaintiff Horizon Pharma, Inc.
`Horizon Pharma USA, Inc., and
`the Witness:
` COOLEY
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, CA 94304
` BY: SUSAN KRUMPLITSCH, ESQ.
`
`On behalf of Plaintiff Pozen Inc.:
` BAKER BOTTS
` (Via telephone)
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard
` Austin, TX 78701
` BY: JEFFREY GRITTON, ESQ.
`
`On behalf of Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
`Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.:
` BUDD LARNER
` 150 John F. Kennedy Parkway
` Short Hills, NJ 07078
` BY: DMITRY SHELHOFF, ESQ.
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont.'d)
`
`On behalf of Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals
`Inc., Mylan Laboratories Ltd. and Mylan Inc.:
`
` PERKINS COIE
` One East Main Street
` Madison, WI 53703
` BY: MELODY GLAZER, ESQ.
`
`ALSO PRESENT: SCOTT SWING, Legal Video Specialist
`
`1 2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 5 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`-----------------------------------------------
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` 9:08 a.m.
`-----------------------------------------------
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Starting of
` Number 1 on the record at 9:08 a.m. This
` is the videotaped deposition of -- would
` the witness please pronounce his name for
` the record, please?
` THE WITNESS: Everardus Orlemans.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. This
` is in the United States District Court for
` the District of New Jersey. There's three
` case names. The first case name has three
` case numbers. I'll read that one first.
` Civil Action Numbers 3:15-cv-03324
` (MLC)(DEA). The second case number is
` 3:16-cv-04918 (MLC)(DEA). The third case
` number 3:16-cv-09035 (MLC)(DEA).
` The second case name, the case
` numbers are, two of them: 3:15-cv-03327
` (MLC)(DEA). The second case number
` 3:16-cv-04921 (MLC)(DEA).
` The third case name has two case
`
`Page 6 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`numbers. The first one is 3:15-cv-03326
`(MLC)(DEA). The next case number
`3:16-cv-04920 (MLC)(DEA).
` Today's date and time are indicated
`on the video screen. We are located today
`at 100 Marriott Way in Chapel Hill, North
`Carolina.
` The court reporter today is Cindy
`Hayden in association with TSG Reporting.
`My name is Scott Swing. I'm a certified
`legal video specialist, and I'm also here
`on behalf of TSG Reporting.
` At this time, counselors in the room
`will identify themselves and who they
`represent, starting with the noticing
`attorney first please.
` MR. SHELHOFF: Dmitry Shelhoff from
`the law firm of Budd Larner representing
`Dr. Reddy's Labs, Ltd., and Dr. Reddy's
`Labs, Inc.
` MS. GLAZER: Melody Glazer of
`Perkins Coie on behalf of Mylan.
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Susan Krumplitsch
`of Cooley representing the witness,
`
`Page 7 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Dr. Orlemans, and Plaintiff Horizon.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the phone?
` MR. GRITTON: This is Jeff Gritton
` from Baker Botts on behalf of Plaintiff
` Pozen.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: At this time our
` court reporter will administer the oath and
` then we may proceed.
` * * *
`Whereupon,
` EVERARDUS ORLEMANS, Ph.D.,
`after having been previously duly sworn or
`affirmed, was examined and did continue to
`testify under oath as follows:
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You may proceed,
` Counselor.
` MR. SHELHOFF: Just for the clarity
` of the record, this notice -- deposition
` notice has been amended, and the caption
` that's been just read is an old caption.
` So the case has been transferred from
` Trenton to Newark, and the legal -- the
` case under which the parties customarily
` file documents is now 2:16-CV-4918. So the
`
`Page 8 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` case is pending before Judge Chesler and
` Magistrate Judge Waldor in Newark.
` Marking as Exhibit 1 Amended Notice
` of Deposition of Everardus Orlemans.
` (DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1, Amended
` Notice of Deposition of Everardus Orlemans,
` was marked for identification.)
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Hello, Dr. Orlemans.
` A. Hello.
` Q. So I believe we've met before,
`almost exactly three years ago.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And you've been deposed in the
`predecessor case to this. So this case is sort
`of a continuation of that case, but there are
`new parties now.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And that's why we invited you to
`come here again. And -- so is it your
`understanding that you will be deposed here
`today pursuant to this Notice of Deposition?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
`
`Page 9 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Dr. Orlemans, what is your
`understanding whom are you represented today
`by, if by anybody?
` A. By Susan, as she said, and by Jeff.
` Q. Okay.
` MR. SHELHOFF: Question to counsel:
` Is Dr. Orlemans represented both by Cooley
` LLP and Baker Botts, LLP?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Dmitry, you don't
` get to ask me questions during the
` deposition.
` MR. SHELHOFF: Well, I think we're
` entitled to know this information. You can
` refuse to answer. That's fine.
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: I'm not being
` deposed, Dmitry.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. So you can set that aside.
` MR. SHELHOFF: Marking as Exhibit 2
` U.S. Patent Number 9,220,698 issued
` December 29th, 2015.
` (DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 2, U.S. Patent
` Number 9,220,698, was marked for
`
`Page 10 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` identification.)
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Dr. Orlemans, are you the named
`inventor on this patent?
` A. Yes, that's correct. One of them.
` Q. And have you seen this patent before
`today?
` A. It was a long time ago. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Can you tell me how you
`prepared for today's deposition, if you had any
`preparation?
` A. We did have preparation.
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: And hold on. I'm
` just going to caution the witness not to
` disclose the contents of any communication
` that you had with attorneys in preparing
` for this deposition.
` THE WITNESS: Right. Yes, so we did
` have some preparation, yes.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Just very generally have you -- whom
`have you met with and for how long and when?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
`
`Page 11 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. When -- when did you meet with Susan
`here?
` A. Yesterday.
` Q. Okay. And for how long did you
`prepare?
` A. A few hours.
` Q. Okay. Was -- was she the only
`attorney who prepared you?
` A. Mainly, yes.
` Q. Was there anybody else?
` A. Jeff was on the phone.
` Q. Okay. So did -- did you have any
`preparation for this deposition except
`yesterday in addition to yesterday?
` A. No.
` MR. SHELHOFF: I'm marking as
` Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent Number 9,393,208
` issued July 19th, 2016.
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Dmitry, do you
` have a copy for me?
` Thank you.
` (DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 3, U.S. Patent
` Number 9,393,208, was marked for
` identification.)
`
`Page 12 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Dr. Orlemans, are you the named
`inventor on the '208 patent?
` A. Yes, that appears so. Yes.
` Q. And have you seen this patent prior
`to today?
` A. No. Maybe the contents, but not the
`patent.
` Q. Okay. So I'm going to ask you just
`momentarily about the '698 patent. You
`mentioned that you saw that earlier prior to
`today, but with respect to '208 you're saying
`that you're not sure if you saw that prior to
`today?
` A. I can't --
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
` Mischaracterizes the witness' testimony.
` You may answer.
` THE WITNESS: I can't recall,
` Dmitry.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Okay. Well, do you recall seeing
`the '698 patent?
` A. I believe so, yes.
`
`Page 13 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. Do you recall seeing the '208
`patent?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Do you recall seeing the '208 patent
`prior to today?
` A. Asked and answered, right?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: You have to answer
` his questions, Dr. Orlemans. But can I
` just interrupt? I just want to make sure
` that Dr. Orlemans understands when Dmitry
` says the '208 patent he's referring to
` Exhibit 3. The '698 patent is the
` shorthand for Exhibit 2 --
` THE WITNESS: Right.
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: -- for clarity.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. So I can't
` recall this one.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. So you cannot recall whether you
`have seen the '208 patent prior to today?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Asked
` and answered.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
`
`Page 14 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. Could you please answer the
`question?
` A. So I can't recall this one. I would
`need to read it, you know, still.
` MR. SHELHOFF: I'm marking as
` Exhibit 4 U.S. Patent Number 8,577,285
` issued October 15th, 2013.
` (DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 4, U.S. Patent
` Number 8,557,285, was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Dr. Orlemans, have you seen this
`patent prior to today?
` A. I can't recall.
` MR. SHELHOFF: I'm marking as
` Exhibit 5 U.S. Patent Number, 6,926,907
` issued August 9th, 2005.
` (DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 5, U.S. Patent
` Number 6,926,907, was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Dr. Orlemans, have you seen the '907
`patent prior to today?
` A. I can't recall that one either.
`
`Page 15 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. I'm marking as Exhibit 6 a document
`which is titled, in part, "PN 400 Naproxen and
`Esomeprazole P400-104," bearing Bates numbers
`PZ00034117 to PZ00034197. So I notice that the
`Bates numbers on the document, some were cut
`off, but that's how the document has been used
`three years ago during the prior deposition of
`October 21st, 2014.
` (DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 6, Clinical
` Study Report - PN400-104, was marked for
` identification.)
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. So, Dr. Orlemans, have you seen the
`document marked Exhibit 6 prior to today?
` A. If this is an exact copy of what we
`used in the New Drug Application, yes, because
`I signed this one, right?
` Q. Yeah. So if you could turn to
`second page of the document, that would be
`bearing Bates numbers PZ00034118. So here at
`the bottom of the page, is this your signature?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And the document is dated 26
`September 2008?
`
`Page 16 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` A. Yep, correct.
` Q. And you signed this document in your
`capacity as senior vice president, clinical
`research for Pozen, Inc.?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Could you just very generally
`explain why was your -- your signature is not
`the only one on the page, right?
` A. Yeah, that's -- that's visible,
`right?
` Q. So there are several other people
`from Pozen which also signed this page, right?
` A. Uh-huh. Correct.
` Q. So could you just very generally
`explain why was your signature required on this
`report -- on this clinical study report?
` A. Because I have to -- somebody has to
`approve the report, right? Someone has to
`approve the report. And the other ones are the
`writers. I'm sorry. The other ones are the
`writers of the report.
` Q. Okay. And can you just very
`generally explain what -- what is the nature of
`this document?
`
`Page 17 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` A. This is a clinical study report that
`is the result of a clinical study that we
`performed in healthy volunteers.
` Q. And what is the study initiation
`date?
` A. On the report it says April 3, 2007.
` Q. And what is the PN400-104 study
`completion date?
` A. On the report it says 25 June 2007.
` Q. And what is the release date of the
`PN400-104 clinical study report date?
` A. 26 September 2008, right, when we
`signed.
` Q. If you please turn to the third page
`of the PN400-104 report at PZ00034119.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. On that page do you see the name of
`Philip Miner? It's in the middle.
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And -- so the page describes Philip
`Miner as an investigator, correct?
` A. That's correct. Yes.
` Q. Could you explain what it means in
`the context of this report?
`
`Page 18 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Can you explain who Philip Miner is?
` A. So Dr. Philip Miner is the lead
`investigator for our study.
` Q. Was he an employee of Pozen at -- in
`2007, 2008?
` A. No.
` Q. Is he an outside consultant?
` A. No.
` Q. Is he a medical doctor?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is he a principal research
`investigator?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Did Pozen contract Philip Miner to
`perform the clinical study which is reflected
`in the clinical study report PN400-104?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Vague.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Can you explain what's the role of
`Philip -- why -- why Philip Miner's name is in
`this report?
` A. So --
`
`Page 19 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Asked
` and answered.
` You can still answer.
` THE WITNESS: So Philip Miner was
` basically contracted by Pozen to run the
` study, to execute the clinical part of the
` study, to be more precise.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. And where was the study conducted?
` A. The study center it says also on the
`same page is Oklahoma.
` Q. Was Philip Miner responsible for
`enrolling patients in Pozen's -- of the study?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: Yes. That is --
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Hold on.
` Objection.
` MR. SHELHOFF: I'll just rephrase.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Was Philip Miner responsible for
`enrolling patients in order to conduct the
`clinical study PN400-104?
` A. So, Philip Miner and his staff
`likely also were involved in finding healthy
`
`Page 20 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`volunteers for the study, not patients.
` Q. And the distinction -- could you
`explain the distinction you've drawn between
`the healthy volunteers and patients?
` A. This is a Phase I study in healthy
`volunteers because the purpose of the study was
`to do both -- obtain both the pharmacodynamic
`measurements -- sorry. It's in the objective
`of the study on the same page. So this is a
`study to find out what the effect is of PN400.
`So this one of the first studies that was done
`actually to find out what the effect is of the
`tablet on the intragastric pH, on the acidity
`of --
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Intragastric pH.
` THE WITNESS: Sorry about my crooked
` voice. And also we did some
` pharmacokinetics.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. What was your role at Pozen in 2007
`and 2008?
` A. I was, I believe, VP and senior VP
`of clinical research.
` Q. And what did your duties involve?
`
`Page 21 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` A. My role at that time was to make
`sure that the studies were executed properly,
`clinical studies.
` Q. What was your role specifically in
`connection with the clinical study PN400-104?
` A. So I helped with the design of the
`study, and basically I gave direction to my
`team to find a good investigator for the study,
`and oversee if, you know, the study is
`conducted in accordance with the guidelines of
`the FDA, Code of Federal Regulations.
` Q. So as part of your duties -- as part
`of your duties at Pozen during the years 2007,
`2008, was that communication with the FDA part
`of your duties?
` A. No, because for communications with
`the FDA we had a regulatory affairs senior vice
`president.
` Q. Did you have any experience
`communicating with the FDA?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Vague.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. When you were at Pozen, were you
`involved in any way in communicating with the
`
`Page 22 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`FDA?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Same objection.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. You can answer.
` A. I was in meetings, you know, with
`FDA, usually telephone conferences, yes.
` Q. So I believe recently we received
`your updated CV, and I believe it states that
`you left Pozen in 2010. However, during your
`prior deposition you stated that you recall
`that you left Pozen at the end of the year
`2011. Do you recall more accurately when
`exactly did you leave Pozen?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
` THE WITNESS: You know -- let me
` see? I believe it was 2010, at the end of
` 2010, but I'm not sure. Because what also
` happened was he asked -- John Plachetka,
` the CEO of Pozen, asked me back for help
` with another project.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. So was -- John Plachetka asking you
`for help on another project, how does that
`influence the date of your departure from
`
`Page 23 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`Pozen?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. I guess the question is regardless
`of what John Plachetka told you, when did you
`leave Pozen?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: I think I already said
` it, right? I don't -- I'm not quite sure
` anymore.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. So to the best of your recollection,
`you believe it's the end of 2010?
` A. Possibly, yes. I don't recall.
` Q. Did you have any contact with John
`Plachetka between October 21st, 2014, the date
`of your last deposition in the prior case, and
`today?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you have contact with any of the
`Pozen's employees between October 21st, 2014,
`and today?
` A. Any of -- any of the former
`employees you mean, yes.
`
`Page 24 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. I understand that Pozen was acquired
`by another company; is that your understanding
`as well?
` A. I don't know because it happened
`when I was gone.
` Q. So going back to Exhibit 6, the
`clinical study report for PN400-104, on the
`third page of the report at PZ00034119, it
`states that "A non-EC naproxen formulation was
`inadvertently used instead of the
`protocol-planned EC naproxen"; do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can you just very generally explain
`what it means in the context of this clinical
`study report, PN400-104?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. I'll just rephrase.
` Why was there a need to put this
`qualification in the PN400-104?
` A. In the study report you mean?
` Q. Yes.
` A. So -- because, you know, the
`investigator and his study staff is to supposed
`
`Page 25 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
`to follow the protocol. You can't deviate, and
`it this case -- you cannot deviate from the
`protocol because that's -- that's agreed upon
`by -- not just by the investigator who signs
`the document for it, but also by the internal
`review board of the hospital. And they
`inadvertently took the wrong form of naproxen
`in the study. Since that is something we found
`out later, when we got the pharmacokinetic
`data, we decided, you know, to put in the study
`report because it was, you know, not
`protocol-planned. A mistake from the site, the
`study site.
` Q. So -- so it was a mistake to use
`non-EC naproxen in the PN400-104, correct?
` A. Yes. That's what it says.
` Q. And it was a deviation from the
`approved protocol for the clinical study
`PN400-104 to use a nonenteric-coated naproxen
`formulation, correct?
` A. That's correct, yes.
` Q. Did the idea for the clinical study
`PN400-104 come from AstraZeneca?
` A. I cannot recall that. Sorry.
`
`Page 26 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. At the time when PN400-104 clinical
`study report was issued, which is 26
`September 2008, do you recall whether
`AstraZeneca was involved in any way with this
`report?
` A. They were not involved with the
`report. Of course, they have seen it.
`Obviously they got a copy, but they were not
`involved -- you mean -- you mean in the writing
`of it? The answer is no.
` Q. Did you provide the data from the
`clinical study PN400-104 to AstraZeneca?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you discuss with AstraZeneca the
`data from the clinical study PN400-104?
` A. Yes.
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Did you speak with Mark Sostek about
`the data in the clinical study PN400-104?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Do you know who Mark Sostek is?
` A. Yes, I know who Mark Sostek is.
`
`Page 27 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. Can you tell us who is he?
` A. He was the medical expert on the
`site of AstraZeneca for this project.
` Q. And did you work with Mark Sostek
`with AstraZeneca on the -- this report?
` A. I think I already answered --
`answered that twice. So they did -- of course
`they got a copy and reviewed it, but we wrote
`the report and signed it off. That was the
`agreement we had with AstraZeneca.
` Q. Can you explain the nature of the
`agreement you had with AstraZeneca which you
`just mentioned?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Vague.
` MR. SHELHOFF: Well, Dr. Orlemans
` just mentioned an agreement.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Could you just explain what
`agreement you meant?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: The only thing -- what
` I tried to say was we had some verbal
` agreement obviously that we would share
` information since they were our
`
`Page 28 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` co-development partner.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Okay. So AstraZeneca was Pozen's
`co-development partner, right?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And they were a co-development
`partner for the Vimovo proposed project,
`correct?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. And this clinical study report
`PN400-104, it was done as part of that
`collaboration between Pozen and AstraZeneca
`towards development of the Vimovo product,
`correct?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Vague.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. You can still answer.
` A. It was part of a number of protocols
`that we were also supposed to execute according
`to FDA, not just -- it's not just AstraZeneca.
`This is also something for the FDA.
` Q. Was clinical study report PN400-104
`intended for submission to the FDA?
` A. Yes, it was.
`
`Page 29 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` Q. Was it, in fact, submitted to the
`FDA?
` A. It was.
` Q. Did AstraZeneca know that PN400-104
`was intended for submission to the FDA?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Vague.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Did you discuss with AstraZeneca
`that PN400-104 would be submitted to the FDA?
` A. Sorry. Could you repeat that
`because --
` Q. Did you -- did you discuss with
`AstraZeneca that the clinical study report
`PN400-104 would be submitted to the FDA?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Vague
` as to time.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. When was the clinical study report
`PN400-104 submitted to the FDA?
` A. So the report itself must have been
`submitted after September 26, '08.
` Q. Did AstraZeneca know that PN400-104
`clinical study report was submitted to the FDA?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Same objection.
`
`Page 30 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` THE WITNESS: So it's
` co-development, and we share information;
` so, yes, I would assume, but you need to
` ask AstraZeneca, obviously.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Right. So did you --
` A. I would assume that they know about
`it, yes.
` Q. Did you discuss with Mark Sostek
`that the clinical study report PN400-104 would
`be submitted to the FDA?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: Again, you know, you
` need to ask AstraZeneca, obviously, but you
` can draw your conclusions yourself, right?
` If you are a co-development partner, you
` share information.
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: I'm going to
` caution the witness not to speculate.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Did AstraZeneca review the data
`reflected in the clinical study report
`PN400-104 before you signed it on September 26,
`2008?
`
`Page 31 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` A. I don't know that. You need to ask
`AstraZeneca. I really don't know that.
` Q. Previously in 2014 you testified
`that the idea behind the PN400-104 clinical
`study come from AstraZeneca.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. Do you -- do you recall that that's
`what happened?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Do you think that your prior
`testimony is accurate?
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. Does it -- does it reflesh --
`refresh your recollection if I told you that
`previously you testified that the idea for the
`clinical study PN400-104 came from AstraZeneca?
` A. I believe so, yes.
` Q. So is PN400-104 clinical study a
`Phase I study?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. And what does Phase I study aim to
`achieve, very generally?
`
`Page 32 of 173
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2018
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`
`
`Page 33
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` E. Orlemans
` MS. KRUMPLITSCH: Objection.
`BY MR. SHELHOFF:
` Q. What are Phase I studies?
` A. Generally,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
