7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` - - -
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC,
` Petitioners,
`V.
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
` Patent Owner
` - - -
` Case: IPR2018-00608
` U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219
` - - -
` NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
` 400 CROSSING BOULEVARD - 8TH FLOOR
` BRIDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY 08807
` JULY 30, 2019 at 9:06 A.M.
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF
`BOZENA B. MICHNIAK-KOHN, PH.D., FAAPS, M.R.PHARM.S.
`
`REPORTED BY: DANIELLE GRANT
`
` Deposition of BOZENA B. MICHNIAK-KOHN,
`PH.D., FAAPS, M.R.PHARM.S., held at the offices of
`Norris McLaughlin, P.A., 400 Crossing Boulevard -
`8th Floor, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807, pursuant
`to Notice before DANIELLE GRANT, a Shorthand
`Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New
`Jersey.
` ____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`1 of 82
`
`Almirall EXHIBIT 2063
`
`Amneal v. Almirall
`IPR2019-00207
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: ADAM C. LAROCK, ESQUIRE
` TYLER C. LIU, ESQUIRE
`1100 New York Ave. N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202.772.8794
`202.772.8805
`alarock@sternekessler.com
`tliu@sternekessler.com
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
` BY: JAMES TRAINOR, ESQUIRE
`902 Broadway, Suite 14
`New York, New York 10010-6035
`212.430.2749
`jtrainor@fenwick.com
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` BRYAN J. SOMMESE, ESQUIRE
` Director, Global Intellectual Property
`Page 2
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS PAGE
`Bozena B. Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D., FAAPS, M.R.Pharm.S.
`
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`BY MR. TRAINOR 4
`---------------------EXHIBITS---------------------
`FOR IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit No. AMN1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219 4
`Exhibit No. AMN1002 Declaration of Bozena B. 4
` Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.,
` M.R. Pharm S.
`Exhibit No. AMN1017 Prosecution history of 53
` U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219
`Exhibit No. AMN1004 Internation Publication 114
` No. WO 2009/061298 A1
`Exhibit No. AMN1006 U.S. Patent Application 189
` Publication No. US
` 2006/0204526 A1
`Exhibit No. AMN1005 International Patent 201
` Application Publication
` No. WO 2010/072958 A2
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`B O Z E N A B. M I C H N I A K-K O H N,
` called as a witness, having been first
` duly sworn by Danielle Grant, a Notary
` Public within and for the State of New
` York, was examined and testified as
` follows:
`EXAMINATION BY
`MR. TRAINOR:
` Q Good morning, Doctor.
` A Good morning.
` (Exhibit No. AMN1001 U.S. Patent No.
` 9,517,219, a previously marked exhibit
` was referenced.)
` (Exhibit No. AMN1002 Declaration of
` Bozena B. Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D., M.R.
` Pharm S., a previously marked exhibit
` was referenced.)
` Q Doctor, I have handed to you what
`has been marked as Exhibit Nos. 1001 and 1002 in
`this proceeding which has you here today.
`Exhibit 1002 appears to be your declaration
`supported -- submitted in these proceedings. Do
`Page 4
`
`you recognize that?
` A I do and I have a list of errata
`as well for you today that concerns the
`declaration.
` Q Sure.
` A So the first three were clerical
`errors. For the Aziano (phonetic) reference,
`that was labeled incorrectly. We're also
`adding -- I'll hand this to you in a second.
`We're also adding Guo in certain cases that
`missed off, and also there are some corrections
`at the bottom, too.
` MR. LAROCK: Why don't you just
` read that.
` THE WITNESS: So this is a list
` of errata in my declaration, Paragraph
` No. 28, the clerical error AMN1026,4
` should be AMN1034,4.
` Paragraph No. 58, AMN1035,5
` should be AMN1034,5.
` Paragraph No. 60, the error
` AMN1035,5 should be AMN1034,5.
`Page 5
`Pages 2 to 5
`202-232-0646
`
`2 of 82
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Paragraph No. 61, add
` AMN1013,(0140),(0200) to (0202),
` Table after AMN1010,4.
` Paragraph No. 90, add AMN1013,
` (0140),(0200) to (0202), Table 1
` after AMN1010,4.
` Paragraph No. 99 AMN1017,79
` should be AMN1017,290 to 291.
` Paragraph No. 102, 1017,82
` should be AMN1017,291.
` And Paragraph No. 105,
` AMN1017,82 should be AMN1017,293.
` Those are all the...
` Q Is that the only copy that you
`have?
` A The one that I have, yes.
` Q Okay. Now, Doctor, with those
`corrections, the Exhibit No. 1002 reflects an
`accurate declaration that you submitted in
`support of Amneal's petition in this
`proceedings; is that right?
` A That's right. As of November 26,
`Page 6
`
`2018, yes.
` Q And I take it you have reviewed
`this declaration since you submitted it?
` A Yes, I have.
` Q When did you last review it?
` A Last night.
` Q Okay. And Exhibit 1001, which is
`U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219, you have that in
`front of you as well?
` A I do.
` Q You understand that's the
`United States patent that's in dispute in this
`proceeding?
` A That's correct.
` Q And you have offered an opinion
`that certain of the claims of the '219 patent
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art in or about November 2012; is
`that right?
` A That's correct.
` Q I'd like you to turn to Page 9 of
`your declaration, just to orient you, and under
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`the heading Roman Numeral IV, Person of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art, there follows a number of
`paragraphs with respect to your understanding
`and opinion as to the person of ordinary skill
`in the art relevant to your opinion; is that
`right?
` A That is correct.
` Q Now, first question that I have
`is: What is, in your mind, the definition or
`boundaries of the art as that term is used in
`the phrase, "person of ordinary skill in the
`art"?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to form.
` A Could you clarify.
` Q Yes. I would like to understand
`this person of ordinary skill in the art, whom
`you refer to, I'd like to know what is the
`definition of the art that this person is
`skilled in? What is the art that you understand
`it to be?
` A So all relevant -- as I've
`mentioned in Paragraph 16 -- pertinent art that
`Page 8
`
`concerns the topic of the case, which means all
`the background science, the available
`information in the literature, in the patents
`and also the person of ordinary skill in the art
`is a person with certain knowledge, so that
`knowledge is also included in that pertinent
`art.
` Q Okay. With regard to some of the
`items that you mentioned in the last response,
`my question is really the literature or the
`patents or knowledge, what is the field that
`this person is skilled in? How do you define
`it, for example, the treatment of all
`dermatological conditions?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to the
` form.
` A The person of ordinary skill in
`the art, as I have defined in Paragraph 17, is a
`hypothetical person that has the knowledge of
`both a clinician and formulator. So it's a
`hypothetical, again, person with knowledge of
`both areas. So an -- in Paragraph 18, I've
`Page 9
`Pages 6 to 9
`202-232-0646
`
`3 of 82
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`outlined -- if we look at the part of the POSA
`that's a formulator, what kind of background
`they would have and what kind of knowledge they
`would have.
` Q Okay. So focusing our attention
`on where you just directed us to, there is a
`reference to formulating topical drug delivery
`products, do you see that?
` A In Paragraph 18?
` Q Yes.
` A Yes, I see at least two years of
`experience formulating topical drug delivery
`products.
` Q And in Paragraph 17 you speak to
`the knowledge of both a clinician and a
`formulator of topical formula compositions, do
`you see that?
` A I do.
` Q My question is: Is the relevant
`art that you considered in arriving at your
`opinions, is that art broadly defined to include
`any topical pharmaceutical conditions or is the
`Page 10
`
`art something more narrow than that? I'm trying
`to understand your definition of the art.
` A Well, a typical POSA, again this
`is a hypothetical person who has knowledge as a
`clinician and a formulator.
` Q I'm aware of that.
` A I would be working as a POSA, in
`part of a team that would include a clinician.
`Obviously, for example, I could not be both a
`practicing dermatologist and also a formulator
`with my background as a POSA.
` Q My question is just this: When
`you arrived at your opinion that the claims of
`this patent are invalid, did you consider that
`the art of which a person of ordinary skill and
`whose perspective you were to consider is the
`art inclusive of all topical dermatological
`products, or is it narrow, for example, the
`treatment of dermatological conditions with
`dapsone, or any specific dermatological
`condition?
` I'm trying to understand the
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`breadth of the art that the hypothetical
`person would have considered in your view in
`arriving at the same opinions you are arriving
`at in the case. I'm trying to understand the
`scope of the literature, the scope of the
`patents, do you understand that?
` MR. LAROCK: I'm going to object
` to form, and outside the scope, and
` asked and answered.
` You can answer.
` A A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have a scientific background. So like
`I outlined in Paragraph 18, they've got a
`doctoral degree in pharmaceutics, chemistry,
`related disciplines, pharmacology, chemical
`engineering practical experience, which would
`mean they would be coming in with that broad
`scientific background covering a lot of other
`things, and a lot of other drugs.
` Q Okay. So the hypothetical person
`of ordinary skill in the art from whose
`perspective you tried to mirror in this case, is
`Page 12
`
`a person who is considering a lot of drugs; is
`that right, not simply dapsone?
` A That's not exactly what I said.
`I said that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art has that breadth of knowledge.
` Q I understand --
` A But once they look at a
`particular problem, then they look at the
`relevant art that answers or works around the
`problem they are considering. But they bring in
`their expertise also.
` Q I understand. So what was the
`problem that was being considered by the
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`in this case?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to form.
` A A person of ordinary skill in the
`art was trying to look at the particular issue
`of developing a dapsone topical formulation.
` Q Okay. But in your prior
`testimony, you refer to the art being a function
`of the problem you're trying to solve. What was
`Page 13
`Pages 10 to 13
`202-232-0646
`
`4 of 82
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`the hypothetical person trying to solve in terms
`of a problem in the art?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection.
` Mischaracterizes the prior testimony.
` Asked and answered.
` A A person of ordinary skill in the
`art was looking at novel dapsone formulations,
`topical formulations.
` Q Okay. And for what reason? What
`was the reason? What was the problem that a
`person was looking at novel topical dapsone
`formulations? Can you answer that?
` A Well, a possible issue and,
`again, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have looked at the background and learned
`about all available art, would have looked at
`all the references, looked at all the patents,
`would have looked at any products that are on
`the market, and that knowledge would have
`approached making an improvement on any of the
`science that was there.
` Q Okay. What science that was
`Page 14
`
`there was understood to require improvement?
` A Well, an example is that there
`was, in their search of course, where they've
`come across a lot of papers on dapsone topical
`formulations, they would have come across
`Garrett and Bonacucina and all of the references
`that I looked at. They would have also known
`that there was a marketed formulation out there
`for acne with dapsone in it, the dapsone gel.
` Q Do I have any particular purpose
`in referencing -- strike that.
` Does the skilled artisan or did
`the skilled artisan in 2012 have any
`particular purpose for which patents or
`literature they were looking to in arriving at
`the allegedly obvious invention claimed in the
`patent?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Asked
` and answered.
` A Well, they were looking for
`making something novel in the art, but they also
`knew the background, and they knew, also, that
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`there was a marketed gel. The gel that was
`marketed was, you know, the dapsone 5 percent,
`applied twice a day, label said it was gritty.
`It was obviously used for acne, and as a person
`of -- as a formulator and anyone trained in the
`area, they would also know that probably
`patients would have appreciated a once-a-day
`rather than a twice-a-day application of the
`gel.
` Q If I can direct your attention
`maybe to better get at the answer, still on Page
`9 above the heading Roman IV, this is Paragraph
`15 carried over from the previous page, and
`among the other -- among things that you
`mention, in the second full paragraph it
`provides: I understand from counsel that the
`reason to combine prior art references can come
`from a variety of sources, not just the prior
`art itself or the specific problem the patentee
`was trying to solve.
` So perhaps you've answered this
`question exhaustively already, and I apologize
`Page 16
`
`if you have. Using your own words there, I
`would like to know that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art whom you considered to share
`your views, as of November 2012, what was the
`specific problem that the patentee was trying
`to solve? Using your words, I would like to
`know what was the specific problems the
`patentee was trying to solve?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to form.
` Asked and answered.
` A So the person of ordinary skill,
`we've already mentioned comes in with their own
`formulation knowledge, which basically says that
`it comes from a variety of sources not only the
`prior art itself. The specific problems, so
`it's not -- they haven't seen the patent.
`They're looking at doing something innovative,
`meaningful, publishable and create new
`intellectual property in this area. So that's
`my own words for that sentence.
` Q Okay. And what I'm asking you
`is: Is there any particular reason why the
`Page 17
`Pages 14 to 17
`202-232-0646
`
`5 of 82
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art was, prior
`to November 2012, looking to develop a novel
`composition, with an emphasis on the word
`"novel"? What was driving the person to
`consider novel formulations? Is there anything
`specific that you can identify?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to form.
` Asked and answered.
` A So in general, as a person of
`ordinary skill in the art or a scientist, most
`of what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would be doing, would be looking for something
`that's new, either for publication or for
`generating intellectual property. It has to be
`new because you don't repeat old work. Because
`it's neither publishable, it's neither
`patentable. So there's a drive to create
`something new that has some significance.
`Certainly if you're looking for intellectual
`property, it has to be useful and you're in the
`area of formulations.
` Q Okay. So if I understand you
`Page 18
`
`correctly, one of the reasons that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been
`inspired to look for novel formulations is to
`obtain intellectual property; is that right?
` A Or publish.
` Q Or publish?
` A Or publish.
` Q Okay. So the desire to publish
`is a reason why one would just create a new
`composition; is that right?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection.
` Mischaracterizes her testimony.
` A No. I think I said that as a
`person of ordinary skill in the art and a
`scientist, you have to be working on the cutting
`edge, doing something new just in general. And
`depending what your final aim is, you have to
`say the novelty is either publishable or if you
`create something useful and patentable, then you
`go for a patent.
` Q Okay. So other than the fact
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art had
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`an aim to publish or obtain a patent, are there
`any other reasons you can identify as to why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`begun looking for a novel composition of
`dapsone?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to form.
` Mischaracterizes her testimony. You
` can answer.
` A It depends what the ultimate aim
`was with this new formulation. In creating a
`business around the intellectual property, there
`is a lot of things that person could have been
`aiming for but it had to be novel, if that makes
`sense.
` Q I'm asking if you can identify
`what would a person of ordinary skill in the art
`who arrived at the claimed invention in the
`patent, what would they have been aiming for
`prior to November 2012, anything in particular?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to form.
` Asked and answered.
` A Depends on the situation.
`
`Page 20
`
` Q Well, I'm talking about the
`situation of the facts of the prior art in this
`case if we assume that as the context, the
`situation, the state of the art at the time in
`November 2012 --
` A Um-hmm.
` Q What would a person of ordinary
`skill in the art have had at the outset of this
`project, at the outset of this claimed
`invention?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Asked
` and answered.
` A Again, producing something novel
`that could be published or patented.
` Q With that being the aim, there is
`an unlimited amount of starting points; is that
`fair to say?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection to the
` form. You can answer.
` Q If you disagree with me, that's
`fine.
` A It depends on what problem and
`Page 21
`Pages 18 to 21
`202-232-0646
`
`6 of 82
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`what novelty that person of ordinary skill in
`the art was trying to solve.
` Q And aside from being able to
`publish or get intellectual property, what other
`problems, if any, would that person of ordinary
`skill have been trying to solve prior to
`November 2012?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Asked
` and answered.
` MR. TRAINOR: She's using the
` term "problem".
` Q I would like to understand if
`there are specific problems. If there are
`problems that go beyond wanting to publish and
`to patent, I want to know. And if there aren't,
`I want to know. I want to understand if you
`thought there were any particular problems that
`would have started this person of ordinary skill
`in the art down the path which you believe led
`to this obvious invention?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Asked
` and answered.
`
`Page 22
`
` A My problem is in the sense of
`challenges of novelty, I think that's what I
`outlined previously. Every person of ordinary
`skill in the art or scientist is looking to
`solve a challenge, an issue, a problem, whatever
`we call it. I'm not saying it's always a
`problem in the negative sense, it may be an
`improvement of the formulation, but it has to be
`something new.
` Q Okay.
` A And the ultimate objective is
`either publishing, depending on where you are or
`patenting, and there are nuances on whether you
`want to start a business, get promotion as a
`professor, whatever. Obviously there are
`various cases.
` Q Continuing on in Paragraph 15 of
`your declaration, Exhibit 1002. In that same
`paragraph, third full sentence begins: I
`understand from counsel that the references
`themselves may not provide specific hint or
`suggestion of the alteration needed to arrive at
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`the claimed invention.
` Do you see that?
` A I do.
` Q Okay. And it is your view that
`in this case, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would indeed have arrived at the claimed
`invention of the '219 Patent; is that correct?
` A That is correct.
` Q Okay. Let's assume that is true.
`I would like to know where did that person of
`ordinary skill in the art begin on the road to
`arriving at the claimed invention, what was the
`starting point in your view?
` A The starting point always is a
`thorough literature search.
` Q Right. And then --
` A Within all the publications,
`patents, textbooks with the idea, of course,
`that the POSA has come with their certain
`knowledge.
` Q The person of -- the hypothetical
`person of ordinary skill in the art who arrived
`Page 24
`
`at the claimed invention in this case would have
`begun with a literature search, correct? That's
`what you just said.
` A Correct.
` Q Can you describe for me how, in
`your view, that person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have conducted the search you're
`referencing?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Scope.
` A Depends what -- what access they
`have and what databases they have. They would
`do a thorough search in all databases they have
`access to.
` Q A search for what?
` A For the background, prior
`information about any of the parts that are
`involved with that formulation for example.
` Q Okay. The parts that are
`involved in the claimed formulation are dapsone,
`correct?
` A Well, if the POSA was looking for
`a new dapsone formulation, they would obviously
`Page 25
`Pages 22 to 25
`202-232-0646
`
`7 of 82
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`look for what has been done and published about
`dapsone, and other things like analytical
`information, formulation information, chemical
`information, stability information and other
`aspects, anything they could find out.
` Q Um-hmm. Okay. But in your
`answer, you qualified that the issue is if, with
`an emphasis on "if", the person is looking for,
`I believe you said dapsone, but that's what I'm
`trying to understand.
` You're providing an opinion.
`If you're telling me that that opinion is
`based on a bunch of conditions where it
`depends, that's fine. I want to understand
`that. If your opinion is based on an analysis
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, I want to know where that
`person started and how they searched for what
`they started with?
` A Yes, I thought I'm telling you
`how --
` Q Specific to this case, I would
`Page 26
`
`like to know how a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would search for, started with and began
`on the road to the arrival, as you say, of the
`claimed invention? Can you describe that
`specifically for me, please?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Form.
` Scope. Asked and answered. You can
` answer again.
` A So a person of ordinary skill in
`the art, and every scientist starts the same
`way, they will research the topic by looking at
`what is out in the literature, what has been
`marketed in the area, what's being used, what
`the drug is, what the disease state is, putting
`all of that together. It's standard.
` Q And all I'm asking you is: What
`is that topic that you just referred to in your
`prior answer?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Asked
` and answered.
` A Topic of topical formulations.
` Q Generally?
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
` A Generally, that have dapsone.
` Q Okay. That was my question. So
`in your view, the scope of the prior art that
`the skilled artisan in this case considers, is
`topical formulations of dapsone, correct?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection.
` Mischaracterizes her declaration.
` Mischaracterizes her testimony.
` MR. TRAINOR: I think I have
` absolutely the right to understand
` what is the art that she's referring
` to.
` Q Is it broad? Is it narrow? I'm
`asking you this a million different ways. I
`just want to know, is that your view that the
`relevant field here is topical compositions with
`dapsone, yes or no?
` MR. LAROCK: Same objections.
` Asked and answered.
` A A person of ordinary skill in the
`art working in this area already as an expert
`formulator, with knowledge like I already
`Page 28
`
`outlined on topical formulations, on drugs, on
`how they're used topically. So they don't start
`anywhere. They've started way back in their
`careers.
` Q Okay. And that being the case --
` A They're experts in this area. A
`person of ordinary skill in the art is defined
`in my report.
` Q So this person who has this
`wealth of experience that you referred to with
`other drugs, how is it that they begin the
`journey which arrives at the claimed invention
`by focusing on dapsone, to the exclusion of
`other dapsone compositions? Is there a reason
`for that?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Scope.
` You can answer.
` A They're looking for -- again as a
`formulator -- again, what I already said is
`looking for improvements of the science,
`improvement of existing formulations. Again,
`this hypothetical person may have looked at some
`Page 29
`Pages 26 to 29
`202-232-0646
`
`8 of 82
`
`

`

`7/30/2019
`
`Amneal, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`
`Bozena Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`other drug also in their lives, but they've come
`across the fact that this dapsone gel, that that
`particular formulation is given twice a day.
`And this is a process that obviously has moved
`along, and they identify a problem at a certain
`point in time, and they want to solve the
`problem. So they narrow down all of this to a
`particular challenge, issue. I don't want to
`necessarily call it a problem, but a way of
`improving something that already exists.
` Q Okay. But a lot of topical
`compositions already existed as well for
`dermatological conditions in November 2012,
`correct?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Scope.
` A Yes, but it's a hypothetical
`person, remember? So a hypothetical person
`happened to have decided that they want to
`tackle the problem of dapsone.
` Q I understand it's a hypothetical
`person. Right now I'm asking you a question of
`fact, which is: As of November 2012, you would
`Page 30
`
`agree with me that there were hundreds of other
`topical compositions known and approved to be
`useful in the treatment of various
`dermatological conditions, correct?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Scope.
` You can answer, if you know.
` A And, again, there are many
`dermatological conditions and many drugs that
`are applied topically, of course.
` Q So the answer is yes?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection.
` Mischaracterizes her testimony.
` Q So the answer is that yes, as of
`November 2012, there were many dermatological
`conditions and drugs that were applied
`topically; is that right?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection.
` Mischaracterizes her testimony. She
` didn't say yes.
` Q Okay.
` A I'm saying there are various
`dermatological conditions, lots of drugs that
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2019
`
`are given topically, of course.
` Q Including dapsone?
` A Including dapsone. But our
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`identified a problem that included dapsone.
`They have to start indentifying --
` Q We'll get to that. See if you
`can answer my question. That being the case, is
`there anything in particular about dapsone that
`led one of ordinary skill in the art to believe
`that the aim of creating something novel was any
`more or less promising than any of the other
`drugs that could be reformulated at that time?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Scope.
` Form.
` Q Do you understand my question?
` A Can you repeat it?
` Q My question was: That being the
`case, that there were many drugs available,
`topical compositions for a variety of
`dermatological conditions as of November 2012,
`my question is: Is there anything in particular
`Page 32
`
`about topical compositions of dapsone that at
`that time would have led a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to believe that it was any more
`or less promising in terms of meeting your aim
`of finding something novel, than any of the
`other drugs that could have been used as
`starting points?
` MR. LAROCK: Objection. Scope.
` A Well, again, that's something
`that I, as the expert for this report, wasn't
`asked to look at, of the broadness if somebod