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
`______________________________________________________
`
` MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, )
` INC., )
`)
`Petitioner, )
`) NO. IPR2019-00554
`vs. )
`) PATENT NO. 8,058,069
` ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA )
` CORPORATION, )
`)
`Patent Owner. )
`)
`______________________________________________________
`
`DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION OF
`DAVID H. THOMPSON, Ph.D.
`______________________________________________________
`WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020
`9:04 A.M.
`701 5TH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
`
`REPORTED BY: VICKY L. PINSON, RPR-CCR Washington 2559
`California No. 9845; Oregon No. 16-0442
`JOB NO. 3835178
`PAGES 1 - 211
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 1
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 1
`Moderna v Arbutus
`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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________________
`
` MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, )
` INC., )
`)
`Petitioner, )
`) NO. IPR2019-00554
`vs. )
`) PATENT NO. 8,058,069
` ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA )
` CORPORATION, )
`)
`Patent Owner. )
`)
`______________________________________________________
`
`DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION OF
`DAVID H. THOMPSON, Ph.D.
`______________________________________________________
`WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020
`9:04 A.M.
`701 5TH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
`
`REPORTED BY: VICKY L. PINSON, RPR-CCR Washington 2559
`California No. 9845; Oregon No. 16-0442
`JOB NO. 3835178
`PAGES 1 - 211
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 1
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 1
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`F O R T H E P E T I T I O N E R :
` C . M A C L A I N W E L L S
` I r e l l & M a n e l l a , L L P
` 1 8 0 0 A v e n u e o f t h e S t a r s , S u i t e 9 0 0
` L o s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 6 7
` 3 1 0 . 2 7 7 . 1 0 1 0
` m w e l l s @ i r e l l . c o m
`
`F O R T H E P A T E N T O W N E R :
`
` M I C H A E L T . R O S A T O
` L O R A M . G R E E N , J D , P h . D .
` W i l s o n S o n s i n i G o o d r i c h & R o s a t i
` 7 0 1 5 t h A v e n u e , S u i t e 5 1 0 0
` S e a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4
` 2 0 6 . 8 8 3 . 2 5 0 0
` m r o s a t o @ w s g r . c o m
` l g r e e n @ w s g r . c o m
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8 9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`1 5
`1 6
`1 7
`1 8
`1 9
`2 0
`2 1
`2 2
`2 3
`2 4
`2 5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 2
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 2
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
` I N D E X
`
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
` Mr. Wells 4
` Mr. Rosato 203
`
`EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE
`Exhibit 1 Declaration of David H. 5
` Thompson, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 2 Curriculum Vitae of David H. 5
` Thompson
`Exhibit 3 US Patent 8,058,069 B2 31
`Exhibit 4 Publication '196 107
`Exhibit 5 US Patent Application 112
` Publication 2006/0134189 A1
`
`Exhibit 6 Excerpt from the Prosecution 158
` History
`Exhibit 7 US Patent Application 160
` Publication 2006/0008910 A1
`
`Exhibit 8 US Patent Application 191
` Publication 2006/0240554 A1
`Exhibit 9 Article: 197
` Diffusible-PEG-Lipid
` Stabilized Plasmid Lipid
` Particles
`
`Exhibit 10 Orange Book: Approved Drug 201
` Products with Therapeutic
` Equivalence Evaluations
`
`Exhibit 11 Deposition of David H. 207
` Thompson, Ph.D. - 02-04-2019
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 3
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 3
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
` Seattle, Washington; January 15, 2020
`
` 9:04 a.m.
`
` * * *
`
` DAVID H. THOMPSON, Ph.D.,
`
`sworn as a witness by the Certified Court Reporter,
`
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. WELLS:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Thompson. Welcome back.
`
`We've been through this a couple of times. Do you
`
`remember the general rules of a deposition?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You understand that you're under oath and
`
`obligated to tell the truth and the whole truth?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And if you'll allow me to finish my questions
`
`before you answer, I'll try to make sure that you can
`
`finish your answers before I begin the next question
`
`and make sure we don't talk over each other.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And if you don't understand any of my
`
`questions, I'll see if I can clarify them. Any reason
`
`you can't give your best testimony here today?
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 4
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 4
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Now, you submitted a declaration in the IPR
`
`relating to the '069 Patent. Is that correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And when I said '069 Patent, you understand
`
`that I'm referring to U.S. Patent No. 8.058,069?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` MR. WELLS: And so let's go ahead and mark
`
`as Exhibit 1 a copy of your Declaration.
`
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
`
` MR. ROSATO: It's Exhibit 23 already
`
`entered.
`
` MR. WELLS: And let's go ahead and mark as
`
`Exhibit 2 to your deposition, which is Exhibit 2032 to
`
`the IPR, a copy of your CV.
`
` (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)
`
` Q. Okay. And is your CV current and up-to-date?
`
` A. I'm just checking that. Yes.
`
` Q. Now, when I was looking through your CV, I
`
`think I noticed that you had published nine additional
`
`articles since you had provided testimony previously in
`
`the IPR relating to the '435 and the '127 patents.
`
`Does that sound right?
`
` A. Let me get the timeline here. I'm sorry,
`
`could you repeat the question? I want to make sure I
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 5
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 5
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`have it.
`
` Q. When I was looking through your CV, it
`
`appeared that you had published nine additional
`
`articles since we had previously spoken at your
`
`deposition in the '435 and '127 IPRs. Does that sound
`
`right to you?
`
` A. So my recollection is that the last time we
`
`had spoken was in January of 2019, and so it would have
`
`been, by that time it would be publications of 146. So
`
`by my account that would be two, four, five
`
`publications that appeared. There are a number that
`
`are still in process that are described here as in
`
`preparation.
`
` Q. And do these additional publications relate to
`
`your work with polymer carrier chemicals?
`
` A. These are -- one of those five is dealing with
`
`polymer carrier particles, yes.
`
` Q. Do any of those five additional publications
`
`deal with cationic lipid carrier particles?
`
` A. Since our last meeting these five that have
`
`appeared are focused on high throughputs. This is high
`
`throughputs screening machine learning. And the
`
`development of a polymer carrier system. So none of
`
`these that have yet, that have appeared are actually
`
`describing the use of cationic lipids.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 6
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 6
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` Q. And so regarding your publications, you
`
`haven't published on cationic lipid -- cationic LNPs.
`
`Correct?
`
` A. That actually is incorrect. I have published
`
`on cationic lipid particles. Just not since our last,
`
`since our last meeting.
`
` Q. And do you have any additional patents that
`
`you've obtained since our last meeting?
`
` A. So on page 15 the item that is listed No. 8,
`
`that actually is now issued, and that would be the only
`
`change.
`
` Q. And does your patent work -- since our last
`
`meeting, do any of those patents relate to cationic
`
`LNPs?
`
` A. The patents that are listed here are focused
`
`on polymer carriers for delivery. Both synthetic
`
`polymer and biopolymer, trying to advance the field of
`
`beyond cationic lipid particles.
`
` Q. And the focus of your work is on polymer lipid
`
`carrier particles. Correct?
`
` A. At present our focus is on polymer carriers.
`
`At the time of the '069, we were very actively involved
`
`in lipid particle, specifically bioresponsive lipid
`
`particles that would degrade in a program manner. But
`
`that is a theory that at present we typically use lipid
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 7
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 7
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`nanoparticles more or less as a benchmark for comparing
`
`our polymer carrier systems.
`
` Q. And regarding your prior work at the time of
`
`the '069 Patent, just so we're clear as to the time
`
`we're talking about, what time frame are you referring
`
`to?
`
` A. So this would be in, with respect to our work
`
`beginning in 1994 and extending actually actively in
`
`the lipid delivery area through the citation 110. So
`
`2014 is where our, where the heart of the paper, the
`
`subject is focused on cationic lipid formulation.
`
` Q. Did you say Publication 110?
`
` A. Yes. Actually, yes, 110, entitled
`
`"DNA-Epitope Vaccine Provided Efficient Protection to
`
`Mice Against Lethal Dose of Influenza A Virus H1N1."
`
`So that's a paper describing a cationic lipid that we
`
`had developed that was degradable, and we were
`
`evaluating it as a potential vaccine in a mouse model.
`
` Q. Now, I think that you mentioned earlier that
`
`you had done some research relating to degradable lipid
`
`particles. Correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Were those all cationic lipid particles or --
`
` A. Not all cationic. There were some degradable
`
`phospholipids, actually natural products, so-called
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 8
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 8
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`plasmid coating lipids that are found predominantly in
`
`brain sarcoplasm as only malate (phonetic) source. It
`
`was kind of a natural choice because being natural
`
`products, they would have an intrinsic metabolic
`
`pathway, not only for their synthesis, but also for
`
`their degradation. And so it seemed like a natural
`
`family of materials to explore for nucleic acid
`
`delivery applications, since it got right to the heart
`
`of what the problem was from the very first cationic
`
`lipid publication, was their toxicity.
`
` So that was really where we first established
`
`our efforts. We then -- so that's for phospholipid.
`
`That work, as I mentioned, the first publication
`
`appeared in '92, actually. That would be in the
`
`citation or publication listed here on page 3, Nos. 16
`
`and 17, plasmalogen liposomes, and then extending into
`
`the mid 2000s where we were essentially using the same
`
`platform -- or I should say the same chemistry, to be
`
`more precise, the same phenyl ether, also called vinyl
`
`ether chemistry. But repositioning it to the position
`
`between a polyethylene glycol and a lipid anchoring
`
`group.
`
` And so it, from a chemical reaction point of
`
`view it displayed the same kinds of reactivity
`
`profiles. But it was, instead, a non-cationic
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 9
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 9
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`non-phospholipid. So a lipid that was formulated with
`
`other fusogenic lipids. So a slightly different
`
`strategy to promote, and to some, escape into nucleic
`
`acid. So that work continued, as I say, into the
`
`2000s.
`
` Q. Well, let's start with you described
`
`Publications 15 and 16 that relates to liposomes. Is
`
`that right?
`
` A. 16 and 17.
`
` Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I think you said 15 and 16.
`
` A. I mis -- my apologies, I misspoke. So it's
`
`16, "Photoinduced Morphology Changes in Plasmalogen
`
`Liposomes Using Visible Light." And 17, "Triggered
`
`Release of Hydrophilic Agents From Plasmalogen
`
`Liposomes Using Visible Light Or Acid."
`
` Q. And did either of those publications involve
`
`cationic LNPs?
`
` A. These are focused on hydrophilic agents.
`
`They're actually, structurally they were different
`
`compounds than nucleic acids.
`
` Q. And, in fact, you've offered opinions that
`
`liposomes are different than LNPs. Correct?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. The use of liposome is conveying that there's
`
`Page 10
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 10
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`an aqueous compartment where a cargo -- in this case
`
`it's, in '92 it was a model cargo. Later that cargo
`
`evolved to active compounds like siRNA and plasma DNA.
`
` Q. When did you actually first work with cationic
`
`LNPs?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
` A. So the first publication of working with a
`
`nucleic acid is Publication 48. So that's 2002.
`
`"Formation of Plasmid-Plasmid-Based Transfection
`
`Complexes With an Acid-Labile Cationic Diplasmenyl
`
`Lipid: In Vitro and in Vivo Gene Transfer."
`
`Pharmaceutical Research 2002, Volume 19, pages 1289 to
`
`1298.
`
` Q. And would you consider the transform mechanism
`
`that you developed to be a cationic LNP as described in
`
`that paper?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
` A. Please restate the question. I'm not clear
`
`exactly what you're asking.
`
` Q. I'm asking whether you actually developed
`
`cationic LNPs as part of your work as subscribed in
`
`that paper.
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. This paper is describing the development of
`
`Page 11
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 11
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`cationic lipid referred to as BCAT. Or at least that's
`
`the acronym that we gave to it. That's referring to
`
`bis vinyl ether plasmalogen lipid. And our own
`
`control, where the vinyl ether was reduced. So, in
`
`other words, unreactive. And using it or comparing it
`
`to the standard cationic lipid in the field at the
`
`time.
`
` Q. And do you recall what the standard cationic
`
`lipid in the field at the time was?
`
` A. I would actually have to review that to be
`
`certain.
`
` Q. So this paper, you didn't actually make
`
`cationic lipid nanoparticles as part of your research
`
`in this paper. Is that right?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form and
`
`foundation.
`
` A. That's incorrect. As I said, this is a lipid
`
`formulation with nucleic acid.
`
` Q. Okay. I just want to make sure that I'm
`
`clear. So in your publication that you list as
`
`Publication 48 in your CV, it's your testimony that the
`
`particles described therein are cationic lipid
`
`nanoparticles?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
`Page 12
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 12
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. Publication 48 is "Formation of Plasmid-Based
`
`Transfection Complexes with an Acid-Labile Cationic
`
`Diplasmenyl Lipid." That lipid is what we synthesized.
`
`That synthetic lipid was formulated with plasma, and
`
`tested both in vitro and in vivo.
`
` Q. Okay. And is the plasmid-based transfection
`
`complex a cationic LNP in your opinion?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form and
`
`foundation.
`
` A. The, at the time of this Publication and the
`
`way these were prepared, and based on the structural
`
`information that's in that paper, these are more
`
`appropriately described as polyplex -- or pardon me,
`
`lipoplex.
`
` Q. And you've offered opinions that lipoplexes
`
`are different than cationic LNPs. Correct?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. As we discussed last time we met, there are
`
`substantial differences between a stabilized nucleic
`
`acid lipid particles, so-called SNALP, and lipoplex
`
`with regard to, really, many different properties.
`
` Q. I've been using the term cationic LNP, but I'm
`
`happy to use the term "SNALP," if you prefer. Do you
`
`have a preference?
`
`Page 13
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 13
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
` A. Actually, as a scientist I much prefer, like,
`
`a real description rather than a brand name. So, like
`
`a particle that has a identifiable property, a size, a
`
`composition, a well-established composition, a
`
`resistant nuclease degradation, a particular shape is
`
`what is more -- is the way scientists communicate to
`
`one another. The other is just branding.
`
` Q. So Publication 48 dealt with what you would
`
`call lipoplexes. Correct?
`
` A. Um-hmm.
`
` Q. When was the first time that you worked with
`
`actual cationic LNP as you understand that term?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
` A. So the, what is it that -- so that I can
`
`answer the question precisely, what is it that you're
`
`referring to as cationic LNP.
`
` Q. You're the expert. You've read the '069
`
`Patent. Correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you have an understanding that that's
`
`directed towards carrier particles that are sometimes
`
`referred to in the industry as cationic LNPs?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection. Form and
`
`foundation.
`
`Page 14
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 14
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. I understand what the '069 is describing. So
`
`what's your question?
`
` Q. Do you have an understanding of what a
`
`cationic LNP is, in the context of the '069 Patent?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form and
`
`foundation.
`
` A. I have an understanding of what the authors of
`
`this patent are describing. The '069 Patent.
`
` Q. In the '069 Patent what is your understanding
`
`of what a cationic LNP is?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
` A. So this is my definition. It is referring to
`
`a stabilized nucleic acid lipid particle. Nucleic acid
`
`is protected by a lipid coating, and stabilized,
`
`meaning both colloidally stabilized due to the presence
`
`of polyethylene glycol on the surface, and stabilized
`
`from the prospective of serum stability. That the
`
`cargo remains intact when exposed to nuclease.
`
` Q. And using your understanding of what a CLNP --
`
`or a cationic LNP is in the context of the '069 Patent,
`
`when did you first work with a cationic lipid
`
`nanoparticle?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form and
`
`foundation.
`
` A. So it would be Publication 56 of 2003,
`
`Page 15
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 15
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`"Intracellular Delivery of DNA and Proteins Using Vinyl
`
`Ether-Based Drug Delivery Vehicles."
`
` Q. And were the vinyl ether-based drug delivery
`
`vehicles described therein what you would consider to
`
`be cationic LNPs?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. This publication is describing the expanded
`
`application of the BCAT lipids that we had developed,
`
`and their more-controlled formulation to give better
`
`particle-sized distribution.
`
` Q. And so were the formulations of the delivery
`
`vehicles that you developed cationic LNPs based upon
`
`your understanding of what that term means in the
`
`context of the '069 Patent?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation. Asked and answered.
`
` A. The particles are -- this paper is describing
`
`the formulation and delivery efficacy and the
`
`morphology of the particles. So at the time of this
`
`publication, it's what was understood as a nucleic acid
`
`lipid particle.
`
` Q. And to be more clear, it was what you
`
`considered to be a nucleic acid lipid nanoparticle?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Page 16
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 16
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. The work at this time did establish that
`
`these, that it was a distribution of particles. Some
`
`of those particles, most of those particles actually
`
`were in the, in the nanometer size range. Submicron
`
`size range. So what we refer to as in the nanometer or
`
`nano size range.
`
` Q. So just looking at No. 56 in your list of
`
`publications from 2003, you developed cationic lipid
`
`nanoparticles in your work that led to that
`
`publication. Is that right?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. This work is describing the use of a synthetic
`
`cationic lipid that we had developed and were testing
`
`its formulation with nucleic acids and proteins for
`
`delivery purposes. And the particles formed were in
`
`the submicron size range of well-controlled submicron
`
`size range.
`
` Q. And so you would consider those to be cationic
`
`lipid nanoparticles. Correct?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation. Asked and answered.
`
` A. As I described, the particles are in the
`
`nanometer size range, and they're lipid-based. They're
`
`Page 17
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 17
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`nucleic acid. Contain nucleic acid cargo. So they
`
`satisfy the criterion of nucleic acid lipid particle of
`
`nanometer dimension.
`
` Q. And were these -- earlier you talked about
`
`your understanding of CLNPs in the context of the '069
`
`Patent, including that they were stable and that the
`
`payload was encapsulated. Do you recall that
`
`discussion?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Misstates.
`
` A. What I recall speaking about is stability is
`
`one of the key criteria.
`
` Q. And using those criteria, your understanding
`
`of what a CLNP is in the context of the '069 Patent,
`
`would you consider the carrier particles developed as
`
`described in No. 56 of your list of publications to
`
`meet those criteria?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form. Asked and
`
`answered.
`
` A. So I am unclear what you mean by "CLNP," so I
`
`would need some precision on that before I could answer
`
`the same question that you've been asking.
`
` Q. I'm using your explanation of CLNP as
`
`described in the context of the '069 Patent where you
`
`said it was a stable nucleic acid lipid particle.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 18
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 18
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
` A. I did not use the term "CLNP." That's your
`
`mutation. As I said earlier, I don't -- the
`
`imprecision of the, of the cartoons that we draw on our
`
`papers and the kinds of labels that we give lack
`
`precision. And so I speak by -- as a scientist, I
`
`speak in terms of measurable properties. That's the
`
`preferred way.
`
` So 56 is referring to a cationic lipid that
`
`has been formulated into a nucleic acid particle, and
`
`it's testing for its delivery characteristic.
`
` Q. And because that particle was in the submicron
`
`size, you consider it to be a cationic lipid
`
`nanoparticle. Certain of the particles.
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form. Asked and
`
`answered.
`
` A. I, I have nothing to add to what I've already
`
`said.
`
` Q. I just want to make sure that I have a clear
`
`understanding. So my understanding is that the
`
`particles described in Paragraph 56 had a cationic
`
`lipid and were formed into nucleic acid particles, and
`
`that certain of those particles had a submicron size,
`
`and, hence, you would consider them to be cationic
`
`lipid nanoparticles. Correct?
`
`Page 19
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 19
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form. Asked and
`
`answered.
`
` A. The paper describes the use of a cationic
`
`lipid to form lipid nucleic acid nanoparticles and
`
`their testing. The last part of your statement is
`
`not -- is yours. Not what I'm saying.
`
` Q. After Publication 56, what was the next work
`
`that you did with cationic lipid nanoparticles?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. So Citation 94 on page 9, "Effective Targeted
`
`Gene Delivery to Dendritic Cells Via Synergistic
`
`Interaction of Mannosylated Lipid with DOPE and BCAT,"
`
`Biomacromolecules 2012. The paper is a publication
`
`describing the use of the degradable cationic lipid
`
`that we have been developing and trying to target it to
`
`dendritic cells as a potential vaccine.
`
` Q. And when you say the degradable cationic
`
`lipid, are you talking about BCAT?
`
` A. Yes, that's in the title "Effective Targeted
`
`Gene Delivery to Dendritic Cells Via Synergistic
`
`Interaction of Mannosylated Lipid with DOPE and BCAT."
`
`So BCAT is that cationic lipid that we had developed.
`
` Q. Do you recall whether BCAT was an itemizable
`
`cationic lipid?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 20
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 20
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. BCAT was a, or is a fixed-charge lipid that is
`
`designed to lose its charge by a hydrolytic mechanism.
`
`So decrease the toxicity of the lipid through a
`
`different pathway than was used at the time.
`
` Q. So for BCAT, the charge would decrease over
`
`time, and hence the toxicity would decrease. Is that
`
`right?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form and
`
`foundation.
`
` A. The design of BCAT was to actually shed the
`
`cationic group from the lipid scaffold so that it would
`
`be a water-soluble excretable fragment.
`
` Q. So by shedding the cationic group that would
`
`decrease the charge of the BCAT. Is that right?
`
` A. Actually, that is not quite right. The BCAT
`
`is the intact molecule. And when it's formulated with
`
`the nucleic acid, you have an electrostatic complex.
`
`And that complex is held together in any lipid nucleic
`
`acid nanoparticle. It's held together by lipid
`
`hydrophobic interaction. So the design of this lipid
`
`is to actually remove the cationic segment of BCAT so
`
`it's no longer BCAT, but it's a small, cationic,
`
`excretable fragment that allows the complex to
`
`decomplex.
`
` Q. And the delivery particles that are described
`
`Page 21
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 21
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`in entry 94 of the publications list in your CV, in
`
`your opinion, were cationic lipid nanoparticles. Is
`
`that right?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. These were complexes with, where we were
`
`testing different ratios of mannosylated lipid, DOPE,
`
`and BCAT, to evaluate their efficacy towards dendritic
`
`cell transfection.
`
` Q. And were the carrier particles that you
`
`developed cationic lipid nanoparticles, based upon your
`
`understanding?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form. Asked and
`
`answered.
`
` A. These were targeted lipid nucleic acid
`
`complexes in a size range that could be internalized by
`
`cells. So in that submicron size range.
`
` Q. And so would you consider that to be cationic
`
`lipid nanoparticles?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form. Asked and
`
`answered.
`
` A. As I've said before, that is, that is -- lacks
`
`the kinds of specificity that I prefer. This is a
`
`plasmid degradable cationic lipid complex that is
`
`targeted, fusogenic, and tested for transfection
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Page 22
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 22
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`efficiency.
`
` Q. Was a conjugated lipid in the delivery
`
`particles that you developed that are described in
`
`entry 94?
`
` A. It's been some time since this work was done,
`
`so I'd actually have to review that detail. So I want
`
`to, I guess, leave it at that. I would have to review
`
`the document to be certain.
`
` Q. And after paragraph 94, when was the next time
`
`that you worked with cationic LNPs?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form and
`
`foundation.
`
` A. So Publication 98 on page 10, also same year.
`
`It's also describing a delivery of nucleic acid. This
`
`focused on specifically the H1N1 swine influenza virus
`
`with the target of -- since water fowl, swine and
`
`humans share a common set of epitomes, they shuffle
`
`epitomes, which is why we struggle constantly with an
`
`influenza. Because there's epitomes moving from those
`
`species.
`
` This is aiming to -- since we have a hard time
`
`getting humans to be vaccinated, the idea was to
`
`vaccinate a swine with an influenza virus that
`
`presumably that population you can treat uniformly. So
`
`this is a nucleic acid formulated, even though it's not
`
`Page 23
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 23
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`specified in the title, this is also using BCAT in the
`
`formulation and testing for the cytacon response in
`
`cells. So it's using cationic lipid, has a nucleic
`
`acid, and is formulated to be in the sub-nanometer --
`
`pardon me -- submicron-sized regime.
`
` Q. And do you recall whether or not a conjugated
`
`lipid was included in those carrier particles?
`
` A. I'd have to look at the Viral Immunology 2012
`
`paper to be, to be certain to answer with certainty
`
`your question.
`
` Q. Do you recall whether a phospholipid was
`
`included in those carrier particles?
`
` A. My recollection of this body of work is that
`
`we were using a phospholipid. We were blending in
`
`di-oleyl phosphatidyl ethanolamine, an unknown fusogen,
`
`or sometimes referred to in the literature as a helper
`
`lipid, to help promote into some escape and delivery of
`
`the nucleic acid into the cytosol cell. So these
`
`formulations were using mannos to actually engage the
`
`dendritic cell population that helps with the, or I
`
`should say is the primary target for this particular
`
`vaccine. So it's a mannosylated lipid, a DOPE, and
`
`either a BCAT or a benchmark cationic lipid.
`
` Q. What was the function of the mannosylated
`
`lipid?
`
`Page 24
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 24
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
` A. That is serving as the targeting agent. So
`
`that's many infectious agents have mannos on their
`
`surface. And that's what's recognized. That's what
`
`generates the immune recognition. In this case the
`
`dendritic cells are using that as a clue that those
`
`particles are to be internalized.
`
` Q. The SNALPs that are described in the '069
`
`Patent don't involve using a mannosylated lipid.
`
`Correct?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form and
`
`foundation.
`
` A. The '069 Patent does not specify a
`
`mannosylated lipid. The mannosylated lipid we are
`
`using in this study is non-ionic. It has a stealth
`
`character in the sense that it can be functionally
`
`viewed as a conjugated lipid, providing that same kind
`
`of protective function. So it is, well --
`
` Q. Okay. So the '069 Patent, the SNALPs
`
`described therein don't use -- or don't describe using
`
`the mannosylated lipid, but a mannosylated lipid could
`
`be equated to the conjugated lipid that's described.
`
`Is that fair?
`
` MR. ROSATO: Objection to form.
`
`Foundation.
`
` A. What I was attempting to say is that the
`
`Page 25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-826-0277
`
`Moderna Ex 1025-p. 25
`Moderna v Arbutus
`IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`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
`
`mannosylated lipid is a component of
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
