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 210
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________________
`MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, INC., )
` ) Case No. IPR2018-00680
` Petitioner, ) Case No. IPR2018-00739
` ) Patent No. 9,404,127
`v. ) Patent No. 9,364,435
` )
`PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, )
`INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`________________________________________________________
` DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
` OF
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD - VOLUME II
`________________________________________________________
`
`
` Taken at 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
` Seattle, Washington
` DATE TAKEN: February 5, 2019
`
`
`REPORTED BY: KATHLEEN HAMILTON, RPR, CRR, CCR 1917
`JOB NO: 154633
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`ARBUTUS - EXHIBIT 2006
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation - IPR2019-00554
`
`
`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 210
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________________
`MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, INC., )
` ) Case No. IPR2018-00680
` Petitioner, ) Case No. IPR2018-00739
` ) Patent No. 9,404,127
`v. ) Patent No. 9,364,435
` )
`PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, )
`INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`________________________________________________________
` DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
` OF
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD - VOLUME II
`________________________________________________________
`
`
` Taken at 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
` Seattle, Washington
` DATE TAKEN: February 5, 2019
`
`
`REPORTED BY: KATHLEEN HAMILTON, RPR, CRR, CCR 1917
`JOB NO: 154633
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`ARBUTUS - EXHIBIT 2006
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation - IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`Page 211
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
` MACLAIN WELLS, ESQ.
` Irell & Manella
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars
` Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` MICHAEL ROSATO, ESQ.
` SONJA GERRARD, ESQ.
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
` 701 Fifth Avenue
` Seattle, WA 98104
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` ANDREW JANOFF, PhD
`
` * * * * *
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 212
`
` DEPOSITION OF DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` EXAMINATION INDEX
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`MR. WELLS................................................ 213
`MR. ROSATO............................................... 403
`MR. WELLS................................................ 413
`
` EXHIBIT INDEX
`EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE
`Exhibit 10 United States Patent Application 214
` Publication US 2006/0240554 A1
`Exhibit 11 Three-Dimensional Imaging of Lipid 229
` Gene-Carriers: Membrane Charge Density
` Controls Universal Transfection Behavior
` in Lamellar Cationic Liposome-DNA
` Complexes
`Exhibit 12 New multivalent cationic lipids reveal 240
` bell curve for transfection efficiency
` versus membrane charge density: Lipid-DNA
` complexes for gene delivery
`Exhibit 13 United States Patent Application 294
` Publication US 2007/0042031 A1
`Exhibit 14 United States Patent No. 8,058,069 B2 304
`Exhibit 15 Rational design of cationic lipids for 373
` siRNA delivery
`Exhibit 16 Liposome Drug Products Chemistry, 379
` Manufacturing, and Controls; Human
` Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability; and
` Labeling Documentation Guidance for
` Industry
`Exhibit 17 Diffusible-PEG-Lipid Stabilized Plasmid 384
` Lipid Particles
`Exhibit 18 United States Patent No. 8,236,943 B2 388
`Exhibit 19 United States Patent Application 397
` Publication US 2013/0116307 A1
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 213
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` SEATTLE, WASHINGTON; FEBRUARY 5, 2019
` 8:54?a.m.
` -o0o-
`
` E X A M I N A T I O N
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. You understand that you're still under oath that
`you gave yesterday to tell the truth and the whole
`truth?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And during the breaks yesterday or yesterday
`evening, did you discuss your deposition testimony here
`today with anybody?
` A. No.
` Q. With regard to the `435 patent, do you
`understand that one of the grounds involves the 054
`reference? Do you recall that?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: 054?
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Oh, actually I should have said `554. I
`apologize. That was my error. Let's try that again.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. With regard to the `435 patent, do you recall
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 214
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`one of the references cited was the `554 patent?
` A. Correct. Yes, I recall.
` Q. Okay. And I'll give you a copy of the `554
`patent should you need it. It was previously marked as
`Exhibit 1004 to the `435 IPR.
` (Exhibit 10 marked.)
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Now, the `554 publication has a formulation
`called the LO54 formulation. Do you recall that?
` A. Yes, I do recall.
` Q. And the cationic lipid used in the LO54 lipid
`mixture is a DMOBA, do you recall that?
` A. I recall the structure. I don't... The acronym
`I would have to look back and refamiliarize myself, but
`it's a -- an aerial ether dimethylamino -- benzyl
`dimethylamino lipid.
` Q. And if you look at paragraph 122 of your `435
`declaration, that has a discussion where you identify
`DMOBA as the acronym.
` A. Paragraph...?
` Q. 122.
` A. 122. Yes; okay I see it.
` Q. And do you know whether DMOBA is an ionizable
`cationic lipid?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 215
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` A. As a tertiary -- pardon me. Yes, as a tertiary
`amine, it is going to be protonatable.
` Q. And do you know whether DMOBA is charge neutral
`at physiological pH?
` A. I have not -- I have not worked with this
`material. Couldn't speculate.
` Q. And when I say "physiological pH," you
`understand that to be --
` A. pH 7.4.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Ionic strength of roughly 200 milliosmole.
` Q. Now, in your declaration you point out that in
`your opinion the LO54 formulation would not be suitable
`for systemic administration; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is suitability for systemic administration a
`requirement of the claims of the claim 1 of the `435
`patent?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: As was discussed yesterday,
`the only reason to be concerned with any of these or --
`in my opinion, any of these developments is to get them
`into humans. And so that's a critical filter in my
`opinion.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 216
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Now, the -- are you familiar with the term ex
`vivo?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what does ex vivo refer to?
` A. Typically taking tissues out of the body or
`cells out of the body, treating them externally and then
`possibly reintroducing them into the body.
` Q. And are you familiar with anybody in the field
`doing work with carrier formulations for nucleic acids
`using an ex vivo approach?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`Scope.
` THE WITNESS: I read a lot of literature. I
`believe I've encountered that, but I don't -- I don't
`recall the details.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Would the same issues regarding systemic
`administration arise at an ex vivo application?
` A. Absolutely it could.
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Absolutely it could arise,
`because the way those cells are kept alive is by feeding
`them serum. And if you have serum present, if it's not
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 217
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`a serum stable formulation, and one that actually
`performs in the presence of serum, game over.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And would the cells -- I'm sorry, would the
`systemic stability issues be the same for ex vivo
`applications for as for systemic administration or would
`they be different?
` A. They would be different.
` Q. And how would they be different?
` A. It's much more challenging. It's a much higher
`bar for in vivo, so you're not only encountering just
`the physical processes in a -- in an ex vivo or in vitro
`situation where essentially you have a -- you have a
`contained compartment that you are adding, you control
`the composition of. Once you go in vivo, you're
`wrestling a live alligator. There are many more
`biologic challenges that you have to encounter and
`survive.
` Q. Now, the LO54 formulation disclosed in the `554
`patent was tested for in vitro, was tested in vitro;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it actually showed efficacy; correct?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 218
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` THE WITNESS: It showed in vitro
`performance.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. It didn't kill the cells outright; correct?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: There was no reliable measure
`of that.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Except there was some activity; right, so not
`all the cells were dead?
` A. Depending upon when you do your readout, those
`that manage to survive can expand. So you actually,
`it's a -- it's an -- the details matter. So an
`experiment showing some activity, there's no measure of
`cytotoxicity shown. I take that with a grain of salt.
`It's a shallow analysis.
` Q. But you would agree that at least some of those
`cells had to survive for them to measure activity?
` A. Those that survived had demonstrated activity.
` Q. And in paragraph 126 you talk about some of the
`disclosures of the ranges in the `554 publication. And
`ranges are given for the cationic lipid, a neutral lipid
`and the PEG conjugate. Do you see that?
` A. Mm-hm, yes I see.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 219
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` Q. You would agree that those ranges overlap with
`the claimed ranges in the claim 1 of the `435 patent?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The -- the ranges that are
`described there are -- overlap in -- in some of the --
`broadly speaking, in some of the ranges.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And one of the points you raise in your
`declaration is that the `554 patent for the LO54
`formulation I think you use the term bookends the 50
`percent and the 2 -- cationic lipid of the 2 percent PEG
`are at the lower and upper ends of the claimed ranges in
`the `435 patent; is that correct?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: What paragraph are you
`referring to?
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Let's see if I can find it. I believe paragraph
`1 15.
` A. (Reviews exhibit.)
` The bookend statement is your language. I'm
`speaking about the likelihood that the composition of
`the final formulation may be different.
` Q. Right. And you say actually it -- presumably
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 220
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`the particles as formulated would be outside the scope
`of the challenged claims. Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I see that statement.
` Q. And do you stand by that statement?
` A. I stand by that statement given the way in which
`these particles were formulated.
` Q. Now, when particles are formulated, they don't
`all have -- they're not homogenous with regard to their
`lipid compositions in the population of particles, are
`they?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: As we discussed extensively
`yesterday, the method of formulation, the composition
`and the method of production of the particles matters
`greatly in terms of the polydispersity, size, all the
`lipid-to-drug ratio, serum stability, all of those
`physical features are impacted by the formulation.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And the particles when they're formulated, you
`end up with a bell curve of what their lipid percentages
`are for any given lipid; is that accurate?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: That's I would say a first
`approximation. There are -- it again, depends on the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 221
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`formulation method and whether it's -- what sort of
`statistical distribution it is and how broad that
`distribution is. That's what is -- that's how we use
`the polydispersity measure as kind of a guide of how
`uniform the formulation is.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. But you would --
` A. It says nothing -- actually, the embedded
`assumption in those -- typically those measurements are
`made by light scattering that relies on the Stokes
`Einstein equation which relies on assumed spherical
`geometry.
` Well, there may be rodlike particles in there
`and guess what? That assumption breaks down. And so
`that means that your size and polydispersity are
`impacted.
` So what you're proposing is... What I'm saying
`is that the measures that we use in the laboratory are
`approximations at what actually exists in the
`dispersion.
` Q. Right. But in the dispersion you would expect
`there actually to be a dispersion, you wouldn't expect
`all the particles to have exactly the same lipid
`components in a particle population?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 222
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: Depending upon the level of
`control that you have in your process and these days
`building in process analytical tools, they actually tell
`you how your production run is going, you have much
`narrower distributions than the methods that were being
`used at -- at the time of -- of this of the `554 --
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. So at the time --
` A. 00 filing.
` Q. So at the time of the `554 you'd expect a
`broader distribution of particle lipid compositions in
`the resulting formulations?
` A. I --
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
` I would expect given the methods that are
`reported in this -- and there are -- it's not clear
`actually exactly how they're being formulated. It
`describes a set of different fabrication methods, one of
`which is detergent dialysis, that will certainly give
`you a broad distribution.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And if you have a broad distribution of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 223
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`resulting particles, would some of those particles be
`accepted -- expected to have greater than 50 percent
`cationic lipid for the L54 formulation?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The -- in a distribution of
`particles, there -- there may be a distribution of
`compositions. Something that would require -- to answer
`the question you're raising would require a separation,
`a fractionation of the particles. That's tough to do.
`But to answer your question precisely would require a
`analysis.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. So you don't know whether the particles in the
`054 formulation would exist in that particle population
`that have greater than 50 percent without looking?
` A. I don't know any more than the authors of this
`document know what's in their composition. I can tell
`you based on my experience and understanding of
`self-assembly that it's likely that -- very likely that
`these particles are outside the range.
` Q. And would you hypothesize because you're
`hypothesizing that these particles are outside the
`range, right, you didn't test that; right?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 224
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` THE WITNESS: I believe I answered that
`question already that I've not worked with this
`material.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. So would you have also hypothesize that some of
`the particles in the dispersion would have greater than
`50 percent cationic lipid?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: In a population of particles,
`there may be a X percent of particles that fall within
`the range. Are those the functional particles that give
`rise to the modest function that's reported? Who knows.
`The experiment was not done in a rigorous way. So
`it's -- it's not an answerable question with any
`precision.
` You know, I can -- just as the authors
`opine, I opine as well that the -- that the particles
`that are being produced here are -- are, have a much
`broader distribution than -- than particles produced by
`other more controlled methodologies.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And we've been talking about the greater than 50
`percent requirement from claim 1 of the `435 patent.
`With regard to the 2 percent conjugated lipid
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 225
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`requirement in the `435 patent, would you expect that
`some of the particles created by the L54 formulation
`would fall within the 2 percent under the 2 percent
`threshold --
` MR. ROSATO: Objection.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. -- for conjugated lipid?
` MR. ROSATO: Excuse me. Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: The -- the -- let me go back
`and look at what else is with 054. Can you direct me to
`the table that that formulation --
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. It's in the back of the patent. I believe it's
`table 4.
` A. Those are the structures. Here we are. Yeah,
`so...
` (Reviews exhibit.)
` The most at risk elements of this, of controlled
`formulation are going to be the cholesterol and the...
` (Reviews exhibit.)
` The cholesterol is what I would expect to be
`most difficult to control. Cholesterol content.
` Q. Okay. So back to my question. Would you expect
`some of the particles from the resulting particle
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 226
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`population for the L5 -- LO54 formulation to result in
`particles that have less than 2 percent PEG?
` A. Well --
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Objection. Form. Asked,
`answered.
` THE WITNESS: If one is losing cholesterol,
`the composition of the other components is the
`proportions are going to change. If we have lower
`cholesterol, that conjugate lipid concentration is going
`up, not down.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Okay. So that's expert, it's your opinion that
`in a population of particles produced by the LO54
`formulation process, none of those particles would have
`less than 2 percent PEG?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Asked and
`answered.
` THE WITNESS: I -- I'm not taking the bait
`on that one. The point is clear. The composition will
`change as a -- in a -- can change, I should be precise
`here. The composition can change as a function of the
`formulation process.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Oh, I have no problem with that. I'm just --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 227
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`but I'm asking a specific question. In your expert
`opinion --
` A. Mm-hm.
` Q. -- do you hypothesize that none of the particles
`resulting from the LO54 formulation will have less than
`2 percent PEG?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Asked and
`answered.
` THE WITNESS: In a population of particles,
`you may -- there will be likely especially as a function
`of the formulation, there's likely to be minor -- a
`range of compositions on a particle-by-particle basis.
`And how broad that range is is something that is likely
`formulation dependent.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Sure. So you can't say one way or the other
`whether or not the particles in the resulting -- any
`particles in the resulting population have 2 percent PEG
`as formulated or less than 2 percent PEG?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Asked and
`answered.
` THE WITNESS: Based on my experience that
`the -- that you're focused on the peak at the
`distribution, not some distant wings of the bell-shaped
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 228
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`curve if we're using that analogy, we're not really
`worried about that, because often those get removed by a
`post-processing step whether filtration or some other
`integral, centrifugal step to clean up the population.
` So usually you're not focused on those minor
`components of the distribution. It's the heart of the
`distribution that you're, that is -- that's where your
`drug is, that's where your activity most likely lies.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And in your analysis you focused on that heart
`of the distribution curve?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: In my analysis I was
`considering largely the method of formulation and the
`likelihood that that method of formulation would deliver
`the particles of specified composition, and it's my
`opinion that that is the wrong technique and unreliable
`in producing particles of a -- with controlled
`composition.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And so your -- in your opinion you hypothesize
`that using the LO54 formulation, none of the particles
`would have -- resulting particles would have greater
`than 50 percent cationic lipid and less than 2 percent
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 229
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`conjugated lipid; is that right?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: What paragraph are we
`referring to?
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. I'm asking whether that's your opinion. In your
`opinion do you hypothesize that none of the particles
`resulting from the LO54 formulation would have greater
`than 50 percent cationic lipid and less than 2 percent
`conjugated lipid?
` MR. ROSATO: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: It is -- it's a -- an
`expectation that they will -- that the composition will
`not be reflective of the nominal concentration, whether
`there is parts per million level, so one particle out of
`a million that fall within the regime, it's possible.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Now, let's go ahead and mark the next exhibit,
`which has previously been marked Exhibit 1005 to the
``435 IPR.
` (Exhibit 11 marked.)
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Do you recognize the exhibit that's just been
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 230
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`handed to you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you've reviewed the Lin paper; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Now, in the Lin paper, if you could turn to
`figure 4A which I believe is the heart of our discussion
`today.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. And for your reference, in your declaration I
`believe you're talking about this in the 100 range of
`your report, if you need to refer to it. Now, looking
`at paragraph 101 of your report, you state that, "Lin
`discloses that transfection efficiency for lipoplexes
`varies dramatically depending on which cationic lipid
`and non-cationic lipid are used." Do you see that?
` A. Give me a moment to find that statement.
` Q. I think it's the last full sentence on the page,
`41.
` A. (Reviews exhibit.)
` Yes, I see that statement.
` Q. And is it your experience that the same holds
`true in carrier formulations, that if you vary the
`cationic lipid or the non-cationic lipid, the
`transfection efficiency for the carrier formulation can
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 231
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`vary dramatically?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. I'm going to
`state a standing objection to anything in this document
`that is referring to content not cited in the petition,
`which I think is the vast majority of the document.
` THE WITNESS: So the -- this set of
`experiments is for plasmid DNA. You can tell from
`figure 5 the fact that you see the particles in an
`optical microscope means that these are microns in size.
`These are large, these are boulders, completely
`different both in terms of composition, not only in
`terms of cationic lipid and the non-cationic lipid
`composition, how they were fabricated this series of
`experiments was locked in on a single N-to-P ratio;
`right. So it didn't -- it's not even searching
`parameter space in terms of ratio of cationic lipid to
`cargo. So this is just a single slice through a
`mountain range of -- of possible maxima in minima in
`performance. So this -- that's the perspective I bring
`to this dataset.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Sure. And we'll get into that data in a minute,
`but I'm just trying to figure out whether for the
`nucleic acid lipid carrier formulations described in the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 232
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
``435 patent, whether in your opinion varying the
`cationic lipid and the non-cationic lipids used could
`dramatically affect the transfection efficiency.
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`Scope.
` THE WITNESS: The... So what I'm -- what
`I'm understanding is being asked is does the composition
`affect transition -- pardon me, transfection
`performance. And the answer is yes.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Now, looking at Lin and Ahmad, and if we go to
`figure 4A, which I believe is...
` A. Mm-hm.
` Q. There's a series of formulations depicted there;
`is that right?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`Sorry, question. Have we -- you've mentioned Ahmad.
`Have we introduced that reference?
` MR. WELLS: We haven't.
` MR. ROSATO: Okay. Sorry. Just managing my
`documents.
` THE WITNESS: So 4A shows three different
`cationic lipids using the same non-cationic lipid at a
`2.8 N-to-P ratio. That's what's uniform throughout this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 233
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`entire set of experiments.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And the N-to-P ratio, is that related to the
`charge density?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`I state a standing objection to any questions on Ahmad
`as well to the extent that they're discussing material
`not cited in the petition, which again is the vast
`majority of the document.
` THE WITNESS: So the -- the DOTAP structure
`I'm familiar with, that's a hard charge, that's in other
`words a quaternary ammonia compound. The other three
`I'd have to refamiliarize myself whether they are
`protonatable or not.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. So sitting here today you don't know whether
`DOSPA is an ionizable cationic lipid?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: That's a -- what's of interest
`to me is the performance. And the behavior of the
`material. And whether it happens to be ionizable or not
`is, I believe, a link to a hypothesis that may or may
`not be correct.
`BY MR. WELLS:
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 234
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` Q. But you sitting here today you don't know
`whether DOSPA is ionizable; correct?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: If that's important to answer,
`I can go look the structure up and answer that question
`directly and be specific.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Okay. Well, sitting here right now without
`doing further research, you don't know one way or the
`other whether it's ionizable; correct?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: Let's see if there are actual
`chemical names here.
` (Reviews exhibit.)
` So DMRIE is a protonatable species.
`DOSPA...
` (Reviews exhibit.)
` DOSPA also appears to be protonatable.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. And now looking at figure 4A on the top it says,
`"Mole fraction of DOPC." Do you see that?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: X axis is mole fraction. DOPC
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 235
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`Y axis is the luciferase expression.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Right. And so the X axis because DOPC is
`increasing there and that's the -- one of the components
`of the carriers presented, the other portion of the
`carrier is the cationic lipid; correct?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: (Reviews exhibit.)
` The -- the way I read the formulation, so
`they're putting specified -- or they're controlling
`composition at the level of mixing the lipids in
`chloroform, chloroform methanol, evaporating the
`solvent, and then adding aqueous solution AND vortexing.
` So how representative that the particles
`formed by that are representing the actual composition
`that was added is -- there's no analysis here of what
`those particles actually contain. So there is, I would
`expect, experimental variation. But ultimately what
`is -- what's being reported here is tied to that nominal
`composition.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Sure. And so if we look at the mole fraction of
`DOPC indicated at 0.2, at least the nominal percentage
`of cationic lipid there would be 80 percent; correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 236
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
` A. That is at the nominal concentrations, that's
`right, that's what the mole fraction means. It's 20
`percent DOPC, 80 percent cationic lipid, one of the
`three cationic lipids listed.
` Q. Right. And then as the mole fraction of
`cationic lipid -- well, let's talk about them
`individually here. For DOTAP, DOPC as the cationic
`lipid percentage increases, does the trans -- reported
`transfection efficiency increase?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: If I understand the question
`correctly, does the transfection efficiency increase
`when the cationic lipid concentration increases.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Correct.
` A. And the answer is there's no -- in this
`experiment, there's no apparent difference in any of the
`cationic lipids from 0 to .2, their performance appears
`to be similar.
` Q. Right. But so I think you were referring to the
`0.2 as the mole fraction of DOPC.
` A. Mm-hm.
` Q. So what you're saying is between 80 and 100
`percent cationic lipid there doesn't appear to be a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 237
`
`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
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, PhD
`difference in performance; is that right?
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: And the way I responded to the
`question already answers that follow-up question.
`BY MR. WELLS:
` Q. Sure.
` A. The way I'm reading this graph, mole fraction of
`DOPC we're just doing arithmetic. If it's 20 percent
`D
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
