throbber
Page 256
`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _____________________________________
` MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
` Patent Owner.
` _____________________________________
` Case IPR2018-01670
` Case IPR2018-01675
` Case IPR2018-01676
` Case IPR2018-01678
` Case IPR2018-01679
` Case IPR2018-01680
` Case IPR2018-01682
` Case IPR2018-01684
` Case IPR2019-00122
` Patent No. 8,603,044
` Patent No. 8,679,069
` Patent No. 8,992,486
` Patent No. 9,526,844
` Patent No. 9,604,008
` ____________________________
` VOLUME II
` DEPOSITION of ALEXANDER H. SLOCUM, Ph.D.
` Manchester, New Hampshire
` Wednesday, August 28, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`Dana Welch, LSR, CSR, RPR, CRR, CRC
`Job #166533
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 257
`
` August 28, 2019
` 9:42 a.m.
`
` Deposition of Alexander Slocum, Ph.D.,
`held at Hilton Garden Inn, 101 South Commercial
`Street, Manchester, New Hampshire 03101, before
`Dana Welch, Licensed Shorthand Reporter (NH#118),
`Registered Professional Reporter, Certified
`Realtime Reporter and Notary Public of the State of
`New Hampshire.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 258
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Patent Owner:
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
`BY: SUTTON ANSLEY, ESQ.
`2001 M Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`For the Patent Owner:
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`BY: MATTHEW COLVIN, ESQ.
`1717 Main Street
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`and
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`JOHN GOETZ, ESQ.
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`
`--- appearances continue ---
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 259
`
` For the Petitioner:
` WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
` BY: WESLEY DERRYBERRY, ESQ.
` 1700 K Street NW
` Washington, DC 20006
`
` -- and --
` WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
` BY: DOUGLAS CARSTEN, ESQ.
` 12235 El Camino Real
` San Diego, CA 92130
`
`
` For Pfizer:
` WINSTON & STRAWN
` BY: DAN HOANG, ESQ.
` 35 W. Wacker Drive
` Chicago, IL 60601
`
`
` Also Present: Karl Leinsing, MSME
` Matthew Greinert (Mylan)
`
`
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 260
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` ALEXANDER SLOCUM, Ph.D.,
` having been previously sworn on oath,
` continued to testify as follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. CARSTEN:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Slocum.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. You understand that you're still under
` oath from yesterday?
` A. I do.
` Q. Where we left off yesterday, we were
` talking about some of the opinions at the tail end
` of your declaration.
` Before we jump back into that, there's one
` favor I'd like to ask of you, and that is, could
` you grab Exhibit 1052, it's the blowups from 2157,
` the three-pager.
` A. Got it.
` Q. Great.
` The final page of that document is the one
` that you were making some notations on yesterday.
` A. Okay.
` Q. At the top of the page, I'd like you to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 261
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` draw for me, if you would, in whatever color you'd
` like, two arrows; one in the axial direction, label
` it, and then one in the radial direction, and label
` that one, if you could.
` Does that make sense?
` A. It does.
` Q. And would you do that for me, please?
` A. Okay.
` (Complying). And I'll initial them.
` Q. Thank you.
` And it's your opinion that a person of
` ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
` axial and radial directions along the lines of the
` arrows that you've drawn on 1052?
` A. In the context of this mechanism.
` Q. Yes, in the context of this mechanism?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Thank you. Okay.
` So let's turn back to finishing off our
` discussion of some of the opinions in that last
` paragraph of your declaration.
` A. It was 650, I think.
` Q. It was paragraph 650, right.
` Just let me know when you've got there.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 262
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. I'm here.
` Q. So where we left off was about 10 to 12
` lines down. The next sentence that we didn't talk
` about was, "The challenged claims further enabled
` an injection device with a shorter dial extension,
` providing additional benefits for patients lacking
` dexterity."
` With respect to that sentence, the claims
` don't require any particular level of dial
` extension, short or long, do they?
` A. Again, they don't have a specific number.
` One skilled in the art would understand this is an
` injection device where this is the population
` that's going to be using it, and you have to
` consider ergonomic functions when you're designing
` it.
` That's all part of the -- I forgot the
` word I used yesterday, but the ethos of the
` invention.
` Q. And that recognition of understanding
` ergonomics was well appreciated as of the priority
` date by those designing medical devices, wasn't it?
` A. I think that people do understand that.
` And then as products evolve, things get better and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 263
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` better. So at the start, there is a -- yes, there
` is that understanding of this is what you want and
` technology keeps moving forward.
` Q. Okay. I don't want to quibble with your
` answer. You answered my question in the present
` tense, and I just want to make sure that I get a
` clear answer to my question. So I'm not
` criticizing the answer, I just want to make sure
` that you're answering the question I asked, okay?
` A. (Nodding head up and down).
` Q. Those developing and designing medical
` devices as of the priority date understood that
` they needed to account for ergonomic features in
` their designs, correct?
` A. Yes. I think that's in the background of
` the patents. Those dates, background clearly says
` this is what I'm trying to do, which -- so I don't
` recall if they specifically say ergonomics, but
` that's implied in there that, yes, you have to
` consider this.
` Q. Leaving aside the background section of
` the patent, though, people of ordinary skill in the
` art, medical -- I'm sorry -- mechanical engineers
` who were involved in designing medical devices
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 264
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` understood they needed to account for ergonomic
` features as of the priority date, correct?
` A. Yes, even before then, you always consider
` your intended user group.
` Q. Thank you.
` The next sentence is, "Specifically, the
` SoloSTAR has a maximum of 80 units, while the
` FlexPen only has a maximum of 60 units."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. The claims don't require any particular
` capacity in terms of insulin units, do they?
` A. They do not have a specific number
` mentioned.
` Q. And do you know of the universe of
` diabetic patients who take insulin, how many of
` them as a percentage require a single dose with
` greater than 60 units at one bolus?
` A. I don't know that.
` Q. You're not a medical doctor, right?
` A. Correct. So I just don't have that
` information at my fingertips.
` Q. The next sentence says, "While the
` SoloSTAR's dial would extend to 25.5 millimeters to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 265
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` inject 60 units, the FlexPen must extend to
` 33 millimeters to inject 60 units."
` There's no requirements in the claim about
` a maximum millimeter extension to inject certain
` dose units, correct?
` A. Again, there's no specific numbers that
` are given.
` Q. And it looks like that's a difference of
` about 7 and a half millimeters; in American, that's
` about a third of an inch, roughly?
` A. American?
` Q. Our units, not SI units.
` A. I'm sorry. I work in SI units, so I guess
` I'm not very American, but that's okay. I'm
` ambiunitrous.
` Q. You said you were ambiunitrous yesterday.
` A. Yes, so I can do either.
` A third of an inch, or let's say 3/8ths of
` an inch, about. And 8 millimeters is 5/16ths to
` 3/8ths, so in that range.
` Q. Okay. You then go on to say, "All of
` these features are evidenced in the SoloSTAR
` injector pen which practices the inventions of the
` challenged claims."
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 266
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` And you've got opinions in here about how
` the SoloSTAR device meets the various limitations
` of the claims, right?
` A. That's a -- the latter portion of my
` opinions, I go through that.
` Q. Okay. And do you know if the SoloSTAR
` device changed at all during the period in which
` the SoloSTAR -- the Lantus SoloSTAR product was on
` the market?
` A. I only considered the current version that
` I had access to, and so the answer is I do not know
` what sort of small design changes or any design
` changes that would have been made throughout its
` history.
` Q. You didn't look at that?
` A. I did not consider that.
` Q. And do you know when -- do you know what
` version, if any version number was affiliated with
` the SoloSTAR device that you considered?
` A. Well, in general for a medical device, if
` you have a trade name and you're selling it, and
` then you go to do any substantiative change, now
` you have to clear that.
` So, for example, the FlexPen was the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 267
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` FlexPen, they've made the lower force, cleaned up a
` few other things, and then it's the Next Generation
` FlexPen because typically, you have to do a
` refiling. So I don't know what was done, but I'm
` assuming SoloSTAR is and was SoloSTAR without
` anything substantiative. That's the only thing I
` can assume.
` Q. Okay. You go on to say, "The embodiments
` described in the challenged patents also show that
` these advantages can be realized by a small number
` of components, thereby enabling a device that can
` be manufactured at lower cost."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And again, I think we may have hit this
` yesterday, but I just want to make it clear, that
` the claims that you considered are all comprising
` claims, which allows for additional elements beyond
` those that are specified in the claim itself,
` correct?
` A. That is my understanding of comprising.
` Q. And in terms of the lower cost, there is
` no cost feature or cost requirements, minimum or
` maximum, in the claims, right?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 268
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. The claims do not give me a specific
` target number.
` Q. The final sentence in this section, "Also,
` because the pen is disposable, the components can
` be made of inexpensive materials, thereby further
` reducing the production costs."
` Let's parse that a little bit. With
` respect to the term "disposable," I think I
` mentioned yesterday there may have been a claim or
` two, dependent claim or two, which talks about
` disposability. But leaving those claims aside, is
` there any requirement in the claims that you
` considered here that the pen be disposable?
` A. Other than those claims you're talking
` about in the other ones, there was not a specific
` requirement for disposability.
` Q. Okay. And in terms of inexpensive, that
` the components can be made of inexpensive
` materials, is there any requirement in the claims
` about the type of material that needs to be used
` for any element of the injector pen devices?
` A. There would just be -- again, there's not
` a specific word of use this plastic, and for
` example, there could be in a dependent claim, but I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 269
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` didn't see that.
` There is -- just, again, the user -- a
` POSA knows that you're trying to get low force
` ergonomic, et cetera, but particularly force. So
` as we were discussing yesterday, you would at least
` in the parts that are having relative motion,
` sliding, you would want to use things that are low
` cost, but also low friction.
` So this is the polyethylene/polypropylene
` combinations, for example, or specific formulations
` of them.
` Q. Yesterday you talked a little bit about
` the rig. Do you remember that testimony?
` A. The collar friction rig, yes.
` Q. Yes. I'm sorry, I refer to it as the rig
` I think because the first time you mentioned it to
` me, you called it the rig, so I don't want it to be
` the rig. But the collar friction device that you
` had -- saw at Weil's New York offices, right?
` A. And I'm happy from now on we just say the
` "the rig," that's what it means, that's easier.
` Q. Okay. So I think you said with the rig,
` you saw it was made of plastic and you looked at it
` and you said, gee, this isn't cheap stuff, right?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 270
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. I don't know the exact things. It's not
` cheap stuff in terms of it wasn't just 3D-printed
` plastic, that's what I mean by cheap stuff.
` This was -- they were well-machined,
` smooth, easily back drivable, so that can be a
` polyethylene or a polypropylene. The cheap thing
` would be if they just 3D printed it. That's what I
` considered as the word "cheap," as in terms of low
` quality.
` Q. Okay. So by "inexpensive" here, you're
` not talking about low quality, you're talking about
` good stuff, just inexpensive?
` A. Well, like I said, a polypropylene or a
` polyethylene, if you pick the right formulation, is
` inexpensive and high quality. You can do
` inexpensive and low quality.
` Q. That's easy, right?
` A. That's easy.
` Q. Apart from the opinions that you've
` expressed here in paragraph 650, you have no
` further opinions regarding secondary considerations
` or a nexus between SoloSTAR versus the asserted
` claims of the patents here, right?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 271
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. Well, 650 is where I'm talking about
` SoloSTAR, how it meets the requirements of the
` claims, and it sells well. That's my
` understanding. So that -- the extent of my
` opinions are here in my report.
` Q. And you don't in here talk about the sales
` of -- in your report at all talk about the sales of
` SoloSTAR, do you?
` A. I do not.
` Q. And you know, you understand that SoloSTAR
` is not sold separately from Lantus. If you buy
` SoloSTAR, you're buying Lantus as well in the
` SoloSTAR, right?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` A. My understanding -- this is my personal
` experience with my mother, is that when you buy an
` insulin injector pen, it's all together one.
` Q. It includes the medicament in it?
` A. Right. And that's why it's disposable.
` So this is not a class of refillable pen.
` Q. Did you talk to a medical doctor in
` connection with providing opinions about whether
` SoloSTAR practices the claims of the patents?
` A. I did not. I had a SoloSTAR. I had
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 272
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` pictures and took it apart and played with it and
` compared it to the claims. But I did not talk to a
` medical doctor.
` Q. Did you talk to anyone named Dr. Goland in
` connection with your work in the case?
` A. I think we had a phone call where he asked
` me about the SoloSTAR and the technical aspects of
` it. But I was not asking him about his medical --
` I don't even know if he is a medical doctor, maybe
` he is. The information was him asking me questions
` about the SoloSTAR construction or operation
` mechanically.
` Q. Do you remember this fellow's name, was it
` doctor or was it Grabowski that you're thinking of?
` A. Maybe it was Grabowski, I don't know. I
` may be mixing up. But there was a call where I was
` asked about the device mechanically, but I was not
` asking anybody about their opinions or input or
` anything that would have any bearing on anything I
` thought.
` Q. Okay. Do you recall if you talked to any
` other experts for Sanofi in this IPR?
` A. There was one man and one woman.
` Q. Okay.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 273
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. I don't remember their names one way or
` the other.
` Q. Fair enough. Let's parse that.
` Can you tell me about the conversation you
` had with the man?
` A. I think both conversations were I was
` being asked questions, technical questions about
` the device. And that's the extent of my
` recollection.
` Q. What technical questions were you being
` asked?
` A. In terms of the -- here's the sole -- I
` think it was about the SoloSTAR. And is it
` practicing the claims of the invention or how it
` works. I don't recall exactly.
` Q. And how long did these conversations,
` these telephone calls last?
` A. 15, 20 minutes maybe.
` Q. Each or collectively?
` A. Probably each, 10, 15 minutes. I'm on the
` call, and the lawyers were introducing people or
` whatever. But the technical content is maybe 10,
` 15 minutes.
` Q. Okay. So you talked to a man and a woman?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 274
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. That's my recollection, yes.
` Q. You talked to Rob Veasey a couple of
` times?
` A. Right, as we discussed yesterday, what I
` was discussing with him about, yes.
` Q. You talked to your assistant, Dr. Rojas,
` Folkers Rojas?
` A. Yes, as we discussed yesterday.
` Q. Apart from the lawyers, did you talk to
` anybody else about your work on this IPR?
` A. Remember Dr. Jonathan Slocum, I also had
` peer reviewing on my -- you know, I have him check
` my calculations, also. I tried to have, as I said,
` good peer review on my analysis. But I --
` Q. Dr. Jonathan Slocum, is that your brother?
` A. That's my son.
` Q. Your son? Oh, you had your son look at
` this. That's right. You did. Your son is the
` medical doctor as well, correct?
` A. No, no. That's Alexander Jr., he is the
` MD.
` Q. I see. Okay. I forgot about that.
` You talked to your son, Alexander Jr., the
` MD, about your work in the case?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 275
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. No. Back up. I asked Alex Jr. about the
` afflictions, the comorbidity issues, and not
` telling him any details about this case.
` Dr. Jonathan Slocum, I'm having him review
` my lead screw calculations.
` Dr. Folkers Rojas reviewing my lead screw
` in that -- remember on the Burroughs, we talked
` about the thread. And he also under my direction
` helped complete the solid model.
` That's it.
` Q. So did either of your sons bill their time
` to Sanofi for the work that they did in discussing
` this with you?
` A. Not to Sanofi. I tell them to bill me,
` and it was a few hours each. And then I just -- I
` don't do any add on or anything. I pay them
` directly.
` Q. And then do you include that in the Sanofi
` invoice?
` A. I do. I include their time on that.
` Q. Okay. So we've got you talking to a man
` and a woman, you're talking to Dr. Veasey, you're
` talking to Dr. Rojas, you're talking to your two
` sons. Anyone else that you talked to apart from
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 276
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` the lawyers about your work in the case?
` A. Not that I can recall. Other than, you
` know, my wife knows I'm here and I'm working on
` things.
` Q. Of course.
` A. But she's a beekeeper who's not interested
` really in this.
` Q. All right. Let's talk about the Burroughs
` reference if we could.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Just so you've got it, I'm going to hand
` it to you.
` So Doctor, I've handed you Exhibit 1013,
` Burroughs '046 patent.
` Do you recognize this?
` A. I do.
` Q. Can you briefly explain to me how --
` MR. CARSTEN: Strike that. Let me start
` over.
` Q. This patent talks about an injector pen,
` correct?
` A. It does.
` Q. And can you briefly explain to me your
` understanding of how, when one patient presses the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 277
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` button at the end of the device, how the forces go
` through the structures to expel medicament from the
` needle.
` A. Briefly, this device has no transmission
` in it. It's a direct coupling between your thumb
` and the plunger through the mechanism. So there's
` no particular intent here to give you a mechanical
` advantage. It 's a 1-to-1 machine.
` Q. Okay. Now, you understand that
` Mr. Leinsing opined about a modification to this
` device, correct?
` A. Yeah. In my report I go through several
` discussions about what he's talking about with
` respect to Burroughs.
` Q. And if you turn to your declaration at
` paragraph 171.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And here is where you've modified and
` annotated a figure out of the Burroughs reference
` to add what you believe is the second thread that
` Mr. Leinsing suggested, correct?
` A. Correct. I did that.
` Q. And where did you get the dimensions from
` the thread that you've added to this image?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 278
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. So what I did here was essentially I'm
` taking the thread and flipping it so the thread it
` would engage would be in the same order as the
` thread that is already there. That is fairly
` typical for threaded engagement.
` Q. Okay. I understand your decision on
` location. I'm asking a different question.
` Why did you decide to duplicate the
` existing thread dimensions in the second thread?
` A. Well, I have here, I've illustrated -- if
` you want to look on page 117 of this modification
` below, using a cutaway of Burroughs Figure 7 and
` also provide Mr. Leinsing's annotations of
` Burroughs Figures 6 through 8 showing the proposed
` modification. That's on the other page.
` So it looks to me he did the same thing,
` and I'm just responding to his opinion of he says
` to do this.
` Q. You understand that Figure 6 through 8,
` the excerpt here, were on the fly at his deposition
` annotations, correct?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` A. He's an expert, and he did what I would
` have done, which is the thread size is about what
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 279
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` is already there. It makes perfect sense.
` Q. So your testimony then is that the bump at
` Figure 7, that red bump that's added at Figure 7 on
` page 118 of your report, is the same size as the
` existing thread?
` A. It's about.
` Q. Your testimony is that when you add the
` second thread in the way that you've done in -- at
` page 117 of your report, that the second thread
` would add friction and make the device wider,
` correct?
` A. Well, the first thing is, is when you do
` that, you have to, as I state on page 119 and then
` in my Appendix D, the first thing is you're going
` to -- this is this cascade -- the thread has to be
` able to be deflected out of the way. And in order
` to do that, you start changing dimensions. And
` this is where the wider device aspect comes in in
` order to accommodate that ability.
` Q. So you decided that a person of skill in
` the art would be motivated to, if they were going
` to implement a second thread, to make the device
` wider and, therefore, they would be disfavored; is
` that fair?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 280
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` A. I wouldn't characterize it that way. If
` you're going to try this combination of adding a
` thread, you would do the analysis like I did,
` simple beam bending and do things fit. And if you
` still feel you want to do it, then in order to not
` have the plastics yield or forces go up, you can
` accommodate that by making the pen wider. So that
` would be the decision path.
` Q. That's your opinion as to the decision
` path that a person of skill in the art would have
` made?
` A. Yes, that is what a POSA would typically
` do.
` Q. Okay. I submit to you there's a different
` decision path, one that perhaps you didn't
` consider, and that is that instead of making the
` added thread precisely the same dimension as the
` existing thread, you might reduce the size of the
` added thread, correct?
` MR. ANSLEY: Objection to form.
` A. I don't have any opinions because no one
` gave me any information to analyze. But I do
` provide my spreadsheet and my analysis, which
` Mr. Leinsing didn't provide anything, so I can't
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 281
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` opine differently. But you're free to take what I
` did that was provided and do it and see if it
` works.
` Q. And the analysis that you did in Exhibit D
` assumes that the added thread has precisely the
` same dimensions of the existing thread, correct?
` A. That is incorrect. And I will show you.
` The height of the thread would be the same, it has
` to be because of the first thread if it's going to
` engage. The width of the thread, I put in
` variables, and the variable is defining the pitch,
` that has to stay the same.
` Now, if you want to change other features
` of the actual tooth itself, I didn't need to
` consider that aspect. But the pitch and the
` height, those are fixed by the design that is
` there.
` Q. And what page are you referring to when
` you say that you considered alternate widths, the
` page that you were just looking at, sir?
` A. I didn't consider alternate widths. If
` you go to 2107.392, that's the FEA model. That's
` my PowerPointed figure that is also used for the
` FEA model. Remember we talked about this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 282
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` yesterday. And then Appendix F has my spreadsheet.
` And you can see those dimensions, the L1 and L2, X1
` and X2, you can see that all here on page 397. And
` if you go to 398, is my scaling. The pitch there
` comes from -- you'd have to go to the other
` commensurate figure of the mate. And that's about
` right for the pitch.
` Q. So am I right that you did not consider
` alternative widths then?
` A. I just used the pitch that's already there
` in the patent. I didn't change the pitch of the
` thread that these teeth would have to mate with.
` Q. Now, you understand, though, a person of
` ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date
` would be free to change the height as well as
` change the width of the added thread if he or she
` so desired, correct?
` A. I disagree with that.
` Q. Okay. With respect to the analysis that
` we talked about, I think you just identified a
` couple of pages, but I thought that if you look
` in -- so for example, Appendix F, which is analysis
` of Leinsing new tooth, I'm looking at 2107.395, but
` it includes some of the pages that you just cited
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Ex.1054
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Page 283
`
`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
`
` SLOCUM
` to. How long did it take you to do the
` spreadsheets and come out with data?
` A. Oh, this was an hour or two kind of thing.
` If you look on page 2107.380, you can see right
` there, this is the sketch of the math and I will
` transcribe my chicken scratch. Excuse me again,
` I'm dysgraphic so I don't have the best of
` handwriting and things. But anyway you see where I
` have drawn out those points A, B, X1, S up over on
` the left side. The dominant mode is beam subject
` to moment and force and then the beam element B is
` not really loaded, it's just a free lever. So in
` other words, where the teeth are is not -- are not
` subject to loads, that's just a lever that they
` pivot down on. The actual beam bending occurs over
` L1 and a little bit of L2 on the top distance.
` Do you see that?
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. Now, it's just sophomore beam bending. So
` I sketch this, all those -- the scans of this is
` contained in the spreadsheet, the beam equation,
` the slope. We could redo it now if you want, it's
` very simple. And then deflection of a beam is FL
` cubed over 3EI. Slope FL squared over 2EI, that's

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