throbber
CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _________________________
` MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC and PFIZER INC.,
` Petitioners,
` v.
` NOVO NORDISK A/S,
` Patent Owner.
` _________________________
` Case IPR2020-00324
` Patent 8,114,833
`
` CONFIDENTIAL
` ZOOM DEPOSITION OF LAIRD FORREST, Ph.D.,
`(Reported Remotely via Video & Web Videoconference)
` Lawrence, Kansas (Deponent's location)
` Thursday, January 21, 2021
` Volume I
`
`STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, RPR, CSR, CCR
`California CSR No. 12546
`Nevada CCR No. 827
`Oregon CSR No. 20-0466
`Washington CCR No. 3491
`JOB NO. SY001101
`PAGES 1 - 249
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 1
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC and PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________
`Case IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833
`
`DEPOSITION OF LAIRD FORREST, Ph.D., taken
`on behalf of the Patent Owner, with the deponent
`located in Lawrence, Kansas, commencing at
`9:02 a.m., Thursday, January 21, 2021, remotely
`reported via web videoconference before
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, a Registered Professional
`Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Certified
`Court Reporter.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 2
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 3
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`(All parties appearing via web videoconference)
`
`For the Petitioner - Mylan Institutional LLC:
` PERKINS COIE
` BY: LARA J. DUEPPEN, Ph.D.
` Attorney at Law
` 1888 Century Park East
` Suite 1700
` Los Angeles, California 90067-1721
` (310) 788-9900
` ldueppen@perkinscoie.com
`
`and
` BRANDON M. WHITE
` Attorney at Law
` 700 13th Street, NW
` Suite 800
` Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
` (202) 654-6200
` bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 3
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 4
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL(cont'd)
`(All parties appearing via web videoconference)
`
`For the Petitioner - Pfizer Inc.:
` WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
` BY: MICHAEL W. JOHNSON
` Attorney at Law
` 787 Seventh Avenue
` New York, New York 10019-6099
` (212) 728-8137
` mjohnson1@willkie.com
`
`For the Patent Owner:
` FENWICK & WEST
` BY: RYAN JOHNSON
` BY: KATHRYN EASTERLING
` Attorneys at Law
` 902 Broadway
` Suite 14
` New York, New York 10010-6035
` (212) 430-2600
` ryan.johnson@fenwick.com
` keasterling@fenwick.com
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 4
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 5
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL(cont'd)
`(All parties appearing via web videoconference)
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Matt Grienert, Mylan
` Rafael "Raffy" Puno, Videographer
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 5
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 6
`
` I N D E X
`DEPONENT EXAMINATION
`LAIRD FORREST, Ph.D. PAGE
`VOLUME I
`
` BY MR. RYAN JOHNSON 11
`
` E X H I B I T S
`NUMBER PAGE
` DESCRIPTION
`Exhibit 2095 Chapter 11 - Eleventh Edition
` Statistics by Robert S. Witte
` and John S. Witte; 203
`
` PREMARKED EXHIBITS
`NUMBER PAGE
` DESCRIPTION
`Exhibit 1001 United States Patent
` No. US 8,114,833 B2;
`
`Exhibit 1004 Flink – International
` Publication No. WO 03/002136;
`
`Exhibit 1005 “Betz” – International Publication
` No. WO 2004/004781;
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 6
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 7
`
` PREMARKED EXHIBITS(cont'd)
`NUMBER PAGE
` DESCRIPTION
`Exhibit 1013 Excerpt of REMINGTON’S
` PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
` (18th ed. 1990), Chapter 79;
`
`Exhibit 1106 Reply Declaration of
` Laird Forrest, Ph.D. (SEALED);
`
`Exhibit 1114 Robblee, Hypoxemia after
` Intraluminal Oxygen Line
` Obstruction During
` Cardiopulmonary Bypass,
` 48 ANN. THORAC. SURG.
` 575 (1989);
`
`Exhibit 1115 Jeffrey, The Preparation
` of a Sterile Solution of
` Mannitol, 20 AM. J. HOSP.
` PHARM. 255 (1963);
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 7
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PREMARKED EXHIBITS(cont'd)
`NUMBER PAGE
` DESCRIPTION
`Exhibit 2033 Hammarlund, E. R., &
` Pedersen-Bjergaard, K.
` Hemolysis of erythrocytes
` in various iso-osmotic
` solutions. 50 JOURNAL OF
` PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,
` 24-30 (1961);
`
`Exhibit 2034 Hutak, C. M., et al.
` The use of cell lysis as
` an index of ocular irritation
` potential. 5 JOURNAL OF
` TOXICOLOGY: CUTANEOUS
` AND OCULAR TOXICOLOGY,
` 143-161 (1986);
`
`Exhibit 2052 Certified Translation of
` NNVICT-MYL_03642127-142.
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 8
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 9
`
` Lawrence, Kansas; Thursday, 21, 2021
` 9:02 a.m.
` ---o0o---
`
` (Transcript contains exhibits that have been
`premarked.)
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
`now on the record. Today's date is January 21,
`2021, and the time is 9:02 a.m. Central Time.
` This is the video deposition of
`Laird Forrest Ph.D. in the matter of Mylan
`Institutional LLC, et al. v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
`filed in the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`Patent No. 8,114,833.
` This deposition is taking place via Web
`videoconference, with all participants attending
`remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. My name is
`Raffy Puno. I am the videographer representing
`TransPerfect.
` Would counsel on the conference please
`identify yourselves and state whom you represent,
`beginning with the questioning attorney.
` MR. RYAN JOHNSON: This is Ryan Johnson
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 9
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`from Fenwick & West representing patent owner Novo
`Nordisk, and with me is my colleague Katy
`Easterling.
` MS. DUEPPEN: This is Lara Dueppen from
`Perkins Coie on behalf of petitioner Mylan
`Institutional. Also with me is Brandon White from
`Perkins Coie and Matt Grienert from Mylan.
` MR. MICHAEL JOHNSON: For the record,
`this is Michael Johnson from Willkie Farr &
`Gallagher LLP on behalf of the petitioner Pfizer
`Inc.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Our court reporter
`today is Rebecca Romano representing TransPerfect.
`The court reporter will now swear in the witness.
` THE STENOGRAPHER: Good morning. And at
`this time I will ask counsel to agree on the record
`that there is no objection to this deposition
`officer administering a binding oath to the
`deponent via remote videoconference, starting with
`the noticing attorney, please.
` MR. RYAN JOHNSON: No objection.
` MS. DUEPPEN: No objection from the
`petitioner.
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 10
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` LAIRD FORREST, Ph.D.,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. RYAN JOHNSON:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Forrest.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Can you hear me all right?
` A. You have a slight clip occasionally, but
`if you don't mind I'll just ask you to repeat if I
`have trouble understanding.
` Q. That's fine. Thank you.
` Now, you understand you're joining us for
`a deposition today, right, Dr. Forrest?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Okay. And where are you now?
` A. I am in Lawrence, Kansas.
` Q. Specifically, though, what -- where are
`you?
` A. Oh, I am in my office.
` Q. At the University of the Kansas?
` A. Yes, at the University of Kansas.
` Q. Got it. And is anybody there with you?
` A. No, just me.
` Q. And do you have any materials with you to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 11
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`use as you testify today?
` A. Counsel provided me copies -- clean
`copies of my exhibits that were filed with my
`report -- well, my rebuttal and my original report.
` Q. So you have with you the two declarations
`that you filed in this IPR and the exhibits that
`you cited in those declarations; is that right?
` A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
` Q. All right. A moment ago you referenced
`your reports. I'm going to try to call those your
`declarations today, but we'll understand each other
`if we refer to them as reports instead of
`declarations; isn't that right?
` A. Yes. And I sometimes inadvertently call
`my second report a rebuttal or a reply. But if I
`say one of those, I'm meaning my second report.
` Q. I'm going to try to stick with reply.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So maybe we can shoot for that, but we
`understand each other.
` You've been deposed before, right,
`Dr. Forrest?
` A. Yes, sir, I have been.
` Q. And about how many times have you been
`deposed?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 12
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Seven, eight, maybe.
` Q. And you've been deposed via video before,
`correct?
` A. Yes. I was deposed by video on this very
`matter for my first report.
` Q. And have you had any other video
`depositions other than in this matter?
` A. No. This is my only video -- or only
`matter I've had a video deposition of.
` Q. Okay. Though at least you've been
`through this deposition process a few times, I'll
`just refresh your memory really quickly on how this
`goes.
` So I'll be asking questions, and you are
`to answer them. If your counsel objects to my
`question, you should answer it anyway unless your
`counsel instructs you not to.
` You understand?
` A. Yes, sir, I understand.
` Q. Okay. Just let me know if you need a
`break. Okay? And I'll do my best to accommodate
`you. I'd just ask, like every taking attorney
`asks, that we not take a break while there's a
`question pending. Is that okay?
` A. I understand that.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 13
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like to take a look at your
`reply declaration, which is Exhibit 1106.
` MR. RYAN JOHNSON: If we can put that in
`the chat and put it on screen.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Sure. One moment,
`please.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Dr. Forrest, you
`have a hard copy there with you, or are you pulling
`up an electronic copy?
` A. I have the hard and I have the
`electronic. My hard tends to pop out of the
`binders clips. So, flipping around, I sometimes
`use those electronic and the hard copy.
` Q. Okay. So you're familiar with this
`document in Exhibit 1106. Is that right,
`Dr. Forrest?
` A. Well, this is -- well, it appears to be
`my reply declaration. So yes, I'm quite familiar
`with it.
` Q. Okay. And you prepared it in connection
`with this IPR proceeding, correct?
` A. Yes. I prepared it along with counsel in
`this proceeding.
` Q. And you understand that this proceeding
`concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 14
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Yes, sir, that's my understanding.
` Q. And you'll understand me if I refer to
`that as the '833 patent, right?
` A. Yes. I understand that shorthand.
` Q. And that's how you refer to it in your
`declaration, correct?
` A. Yes. I believe I generally refer to it
`as the '833.
` Q. And did you review your reply declaration
`that's Exhibit 1106 in preparation for today's
`deposition?
` A. Yes, I reviewed my reply.
` Q. And I think you mentioned this a little
`while ago. You submitted another declaration in
`connection with this IPR as well, correct?
` A. Yes. I submitted an initial declaration,
`I believe, in December 2019 or thereabouts.
` Q. And did you review that declaration in
`preparation for today's deposition?
` A. Yes, I -- I reviewed it.
` Q. Can I ask you to turn to paragraph 15 of
`Exhibit 1106, which is your reply declaration.
`It's on page 8 -- actually, page 7.
` Just let me know when you're there with
`me, Dr. Forrest.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 15
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. It begins 7, goes through 8?
` Q. Right.
` A. Yes, I am there.
` Q. You begin paragraph 15 by stating, "As an
`initial matter, I note that my opinion that Flink
`anticipates Claims 1-10 of the '833 patent was and
`remains based primarily on Claim 14 of Flink."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I see that.
` Q. Okay. And then on the next page in the
`same paragraph you say, "In particular, my opinion
`regarding Claim 14 is based on the embodiment
`described through its dependence on Claims 13, 12,
`11, 10, 8, 6, and 5."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, sir, I see that.
` Q. Okay. And so what you're saying there
`is, as I understand it, Claim 14 depends from
`Claim 13, which depends from Claim 12, which
`depends from Claim 11, and so on. Is that -- is
`that what you're saying there in that sentence that
`I quoted?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: That's approximately what
`I'm saying. When you read the claims, you
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 16
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`generally really read from, say, 5 to 6 to 8 to 10
`to 11 to 12 to 13 to 14 as you increase your
`description limitations of the embodiment, but
`your -- yes, that describes the dependency lineage.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Okay. I'm just
`trying to kind of see if we can agree on some
`terminology here.
` A. Sure.
` Q. Will you understand me if I refer to that
`sequence of claims as a chain of dependencies? Is
`that fair?
` A. I don't know that I've ever heard that
`exact terminology used. I like to think of 14 as
`being a dependent claim that inherits the
`limitations from its prior claims; so as long as we
`can agree that that's my understanding when you use
`that terminology.
` Q. Sure. Yeah, no, I think we can agree on
`that. And maybe I'm kind of coining a phrase here
`a little bit. I just -- and we can agree on a
`different phrase if you want. I'm just trying to
`make sure we understand each other. We could call
`it a sequence of dependencies or something like
`that. I -- I understand what you're saying. As
`long as you understand what I'm saying, I think we
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 17
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`can proceed.
` So that chain of dependencies here in
`your paragraph 15, that's not the only chain of
`dependencies that's possible for Claim 14, is it?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: So pardon me just a moment
`while I actually flip to that particular sentence.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Yeah. And why
`don't we do that. Why don't we look at the Flink
`reference, which is Exhibit 1004, and specifically
`page 48. And I'm going by the page numbering on
`the bottom right-hand corner of the document.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So are you there with me at Claim 14,
`Dr. Forrest?
` A. Yes. I am at Claim 14.
` Q. Okay. And so my question was that chain
`of the dependencies that you set out in paragraph
`15 of your report -- your reply report, it's not
`the only chain of dependencies possible for
`Claim 14, correct?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: Well, Claim 14 descends
`from or is a more narrow interpretation of, for
`example, Claim 13. And Claim 13 does depend -- or
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 18
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`could depend from more than one parent claim. So
`as I said, that -- the terminology is still a
`little bit not one I'm entirely comfortable
`using -- choosing to use, but I'm happy to describe
`the -- the dependency and how a POSA would read the
`claims of Flink and directly arrive at the
`embodiment described in Claim 14.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) So, for example --
`so Claim 14 depends from Claim 13, correct?
` A. It is correct that Claim 14 depends from
`Claim 13.
` Q. And then Claim 13 depends from any one of
`Claims 1 through 12, correct?
` A. It is -- as it states here that Claim 13
`can be a dependent of one of those other claims.
` Q. So another possible chain of dependencies
`for Claim 14 would be 14 to 13 to 1, right?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: It's possible that a POSA
`could begin at Claim 1 and then go to claim -- I
`believe you said 12 and then 13. Of course, a POSA
`typically begins at the broadest claim that
`describes or includes the limitations of their
`invention and then reads into more narrow
`embodiments with further limitations.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 19
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` So it can -- I mean, I'm -- you're -- I
`mean, I don't want to correct, but I feel you're
`reading the claims backwards, very much like trying
`to start at the end of a novel and figure out what
`it's about by reading from the back page.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Well, the way you
`described it in your report was that "My opinion
`regarding Claim 14 is based on the embodiment
`described through its dependence on Claims 13, 12,
`11, 10, 8, 6, and 5," right?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: I believe you read
`essentially back my terminology as it is right here
`in my report on the first three sentences --
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Right.
` A. -- of what they state.
` Q. And so Claim 14 could also depend from
`Claim 13 -- well, Claim 14 must depend from
`Claim 13, which can also depend from, for example,
`Claim 1, right?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: As I said, you could
`begin -- a POSA could begin with Claim 1 to
`describe a particular embodiment, and then they
`would read in additional limitations on that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 20
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Claim 1.
` I may have listed these in that order in
`my report, but that's not to imply that's a
`particular reading order. I'm simply going in a
`numerical numbering here when I composed the
`report.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) So do you know how
`many chains of dependencies possible stemming from
`Claim 14?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: I haven't made any
`calculation, but that's really not relevant to an
`understanding, because that's -- as I said, that's
`transversing a read-your-own-adventure book from
`the last page of the book and trying to arrive at
`the front of the book.
` You actually begin -- when you're reading
`embodiments, you would look, say, at Claim 5 and
`find that it includes a limitation that you are in
`your embodiment. And then you would look to
`subsequent claims that include additional
`limitations that describe your embodiment.
` So I wouldn't read a claim backwards like
`that, and I haven't made any calculations of
`embodiments.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 21
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) And you didn't
`make any calculation of the number of chains of
`dependencies that could flow from Claim 5 either,
`right?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form. Relevance.
` THE DEPONENT: Well, it really wasn't
`necessary to make any calculations of number of
`pathways because, as I said, you begin and you
`read -- you begin with an independent claim, and
`then you read dependent claims that include
`additional limitations that -- that your embodiment
`lies within the scope of that.
` So it's a forward process. And -- as an
`engineer, I -- I tend to like to use numbers a lot.
`But this wasn't a place where I was doing numerical
`calculations to determine a number of chains.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Okay. Now let's
`look at Claim 11 for a minute. Claim 11 in Flink,
`which is Exhibit 1106, is to a formulation
`according to any one of Claims 1-10 further
`compromising a preservative, correct?
` A. Yes, you have read Claim 11.
` Q. Okay. And then the next claim, Claim 12,
`is to a concentration range for "said
`preservative."
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 22
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Do you see that?
` A. Claim 12, yes, describes an embodiment --
`a further embodiment of 11, where the preservative
`has a particular concentration from .1 milligram
`per milliliter to 20 milligrams per milliliter.
` MR. RYAN JOHNSON: If we could pull that
`up, claim -- I mean, excuse me -- Exhibit 1106.
`Oh, I'm sorry. I've referenced --
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's up.
` MR. RYAN JOHNSON: -- Exhibit 11 -- 1004.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) So Claims 11 and
`12 recite the term "preservative," correct?
` A. Claim 12 -- well, Claim 11 states that
`the formulation further comprises a preservative,
`and Claim 12 then describes a particular range of
`concentrations for a preservative.
` Q. Okay. And Claim 14, it does not
`necessarily depend from Claim 12, does it?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: Claim 14 is a formulation
`according to Claim 13. So as I, you know, for
`example, read the claims -- you know, I began at 5
`and went through more narrow embodiments to 6, 8,
`10, 11, and then I saw that 12 incorporated
`additional limitations in which we -- my
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 23
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`embodiment -- the embodiment was within the scope.
`And then 13 incorporated additional limitations.
`And then 14 included additional limitations too.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Okay. So that
`wasn't my question. My question was Claim 14 does
`not necessarily depend from Claim 12, does it?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) I'm not asking you
`about what analysis you did.
` A. Right.
` Q. I'm just asking you a question about
`Claim 14, which you said was the primary basis for
`your anticipation opinion. And I just want to know
`does Claim 14 necessarily depend from Claim 12?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Same objections.
` THE DEPONENT: You could have an
`embodiment of claim, say -- and if I understand
`your question correctly.
` So you could have an embodiment of
`Claim 13 -- or pardon me. You could have an
`embodiment of Claim 13 that did not descend from
`Claim 5 if you did not have some of the same
`limitations in your particular embodiment. But, as
`I said, that would be a different embodiment than
`what I was relying upon in my analysis.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 24
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) So Claim 14
`depends from Claim 13, right?
` A. Yes. Claim 14 depends from Claim 13.
` Q. And Claim 13 depends from any one of
`Claims 1 through 12, correct?
` A. It states here that it is a formulation
`according to any one of Claims 1 through 12.
` Q. Okay. So Claim 13 does not necessarily
`depend from Claim 12, does it?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: I believe I -- I've
`already stated this before. But as I said before,
`if you had a different embodiment than what I
`depended upon in my anticipation arguments, then it
`is possible that you could have a particular
`embodiment that had a different dependency to
`arrive at different ultimate limitations.
` But as I have stated before, in my
`arguments, I relied upon Claim 5 to 6 to 8 to 10 to
`11 to 12, 13, then 14 to arrive at the embodiment
`in claims that I depended upon in my anticipation
`arguments.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) You said it's
`possible that you could have a particular
`embodiment that had a different dependency, and so
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 25
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`that could include a dependency that does not
`include Claim 12, for example, right?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: It's not unusual for a
`patent to describe different embodiments. That's
`the purpose that we put dependent claims in to
`describe particular embodiments. Essentially
`you -- you have a Ford, and now you say it's a Ford
`four-door, and now you say it's a Ford four-door
`with an automatic transmission. You're really
`narrowing it down until you have the formulation
`that I -- I use -- well, that sounds like a car.
`Bad analogy. But you arrive at the embodiment that
`you're using in your anticipation arguments, for
`example.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) And so the -- an
`embodiment that has a dependency that doesn't
`include Claims 11 and 12 wouldn't specifically
`reference a preservative, correct?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: So I believe you said an
`embodiment that did not have a preservative would
`not reference Claims 11 and 12?
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Well, sir, the
`other way around.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 26
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. The other way around?
` Q. Yeah. You said -- you said it was
`possible to have an embodiment that has a different
`dependency than the one that you set forth in your
`report. So I'm -- I'm trying to sort of frame my
`questions according to your understanding here.
` So what I'm saying is an embodiment that
`has a -- a dependency that doesn't include
`Claims 11 and 12, that embodiment doesn't recite a
`preservative, right?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: So I could have an
`embodiment of an invention where, say, the
`formulator did not include a preservative, and then
`I -- I wouldn't necessarily in that case, for
`example, use Claim 11 or part -- yes, Claim 11.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Is claims --
`Claims 1 through 10 don't recite a preservative,
`right?
` A. I don't recall. Allow me to scan. It
`wouldn't make a lot of sense to add a preservative
`in a dependent claim if it was present in, say, the
`independent claims. But I don't see the -- the
`limitation of a preservative in the prior claims.
` Q. Now, this chain of dependencies that we
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 27
`Mylan Institutional v. Novo Nordisk
`IPR2020-00324
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`were -- we've been talking about that you set forth
`in paragraph 15 of your reply report. So as you
`described it in your report, the chain ends in
`Claim 5, right?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: The claim -- pardon me.
` The chain -- well, I would say the chain
`begins at Claim 5 and arrives at Claim 14. So I --
`sorry -- I just simply don't read backwards; I read
`forward. That's how we read patents.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) Just to be clear,
`that's not how you put it in your report, though,
`did you?
` MS. DUEPPEN: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: I said 14 is based on an
`embodiment described through its dependence on the
`claim. That's how I state it, but as I -- I'm
`describing here, you start out at 5 and read
`through 14. But this is how the dependence
`proceeds to arrive. I think we're just simply
`reaching a roadblock by this strange coin of
`terminology here of "chain of dependencies,"
`which -- I am not comfortable using because I've
`never really used it before.
` Q. (By Mr. Ryan Johnson) You understand
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Novo Nordisk Ex. 2097, P. 28
`Mylan Institut

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket