Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis, Inc.
`IPR2022-00384, IPR2022-00414, IPR2022-00415
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,842,787, 10,940,145, and 10,888,557
`‐ Representative citations to IPR2022-00384 unless otherwise indicated.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`April 14, 2023
`
`
`Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis, Inc.
`IPR2022-00384, IPR2022-00414, IPR2022-00415
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,842,787, 10,940,145, and 10,888,557
`‐ Representative citations to IPR2022-00384 unless otherwise indicated.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`April 14, 2023
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`IPR2022-00384: The ’787 Patent
`• Grounds 1-3 against claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 12-19
`
`IPR2022-00414: The ’145 Patent
`• Grounds 1-2 against claims 1-7 and 11-20
`
`IPR2022-00415: The ’557 Patent
`• Grounds 1-3 against claim 1-7 and 11-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Pet., 22; 414Pet., 21; 415Pet., 23.
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Separately Argued
`Halide Salt of Monovalent Cation
`• Claims 8-9 of the ’787 patent
`• Claims 6-7 of the ’145 patent
`• Claims 6-7 of the ’557 patent
`Method of Treatment
`• Claim 19 of the ’787 patent
`Phosphate Buffering Agent
`• Claims 6-7 of the ’787 patent
`• Claims 4-5 of the ’145 patent
`• Claims 4-5 of the ’557 patent
`Buffer/Buffering at pH Limitations
`• Claims 16-18 of the ’145 patent
`• Claims 16 and 20 of the ’557 patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`POR, 55-57; 414POR, 52-55; 415POR, 54-57.
`
`
`
`Field of The Invention
`Petition
`• Claims recite “atropine ophthalmic formulations” within pH ranges “used to treat
`pre-myopia, myopia, or progression of myopia” Pet., 1.
`
`“A POSA viewing the low-concentration atropine disclosures in Chia and Wu for
`the treatment of myopia….” Pet., 2.
`
`“‘the same field of endeavor’ (here, ophthalmic compositions)” Pet., 8.
`
`“The ’787 patent is directed toward ophthalmic atropine compositions to treat pre-
`myopia, myopia, or the progression of myopia.” Pet., 15
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`POR
`
`• Dr. Byrn agrees the field is ophthalmic compositions and ophthalmic solutions
`‐ EX2009, 104:20-106:5.
`‐ EX1001, Title, Abstract, 1:1, 1:29; EX2003, ¶¶29-30.
`• Dr. Laskar is an expert in the field of formulation and drug delivery, specifically
`pharmaceutical formulation for ophthalmic administration, including topical
`aqueous liquid preparations. EX2003, ¶¶1-22, in particular at ¶13.
`• Dr. Byrn lacks any recognized expertise in ophthalmic formulation.
`Reply: No Rebuttal.
`
`POR, 4-7; Motion to Exclude, 2-7; EX2009, 110:12-17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`All Claims Require Buffering the Atropine Composition
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’787 Patent
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’145 Patent
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’557 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1001, Claim 1
`
`5
`
`
`
`The Claims Require Buffering
`
`Buffering maintains solution pH
`•
`“To maintain the pH at the desired level, ophthalmic solutions often include buffer
`systems, which neutralize acid or base present in solution.” EX1002, ¶51.
`
`•
`
`“I agree that a weak acid and its conjugate salt (or a weak base and its conjugate
`salt) can be used to make a buffer, and that whether a buffer exists in an
`ophthalmic solution depends on whether the buffering agent is present in sufficient
`concentration to neutralize acid or base to resist pH adjustment of the eye drops
`and maintain the pH at the desired level.” EX2003, ¶101; see also id., ¶76.
`• The specification explains that a buffer or buffering agent provides pH control or
`maintenance. EX1001, 36:43-46; EX2003, ¶35.
`• The claims were allowed over references disclosing solution pH range where
`reference also mentioned buffers but did not specifically teach the pH range was
`maintained using a buffer. POR, 35; EX1037, 1559, 1562, 1568, 1594-96, 1645,
`1650-52, 1760, 1883.
`• Ophthalmic buffer maintains solution pH and resists reestablishment of native tear
`pH for an appreciable period of time upon instillation to the eye. POR, 11; EX2003,
`¶¶52, 55-56.
`
`POR, 11, 19, 35; Surreply, 7-8; Pet., 22 (ordinary meaning).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner Concedes the Claimed
`Buffering Agent/Buffer Must Maintain the pH
`‘787 Patent Petition
`•
`“The challenged claims of the ’787 patent recite…using conventional buffering
`agents and preservatives to maintain a pH….” Pet., 1.
`
`‘145 Patent Petition:
`•
`“The ’145 patent purportedly overcomes these stability challenges by using
`deuterated water and conventional buffering agents in order to maintain a
`pH that is neither basic (which leads to degradation of atropine) nor too acidic
`(which leads to eye discomfort and further degradation).” Pet., 1-2.
`
`‘557 Patent Petition
`•
`“The challenged claims of the ’557 patent recite methods of treating…[by
`administering atropine solutions that use] buffering agents to maintain a pH
`that is neither basic (which leads to degradation of atropine) nor too acidic
`(which leads to eye discomfort and further degradation). Independent claim 1’s
`limitation that ‘less than about 10%’ of an atropine ‘degradant’ is formed is
`merely a proxy for pH….” Pet., 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 29.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner Relied on Akorn to Disclose Using
`a “Buffer System” to Maintain pH (3.5 to 6.0)
`’787 Patent Ground 1: Chia, Akorn, and Kondritzer
`•
`“Akorn’s buffer system, which maintains a pH of 3.5-6.0, would have been an
`obvious choice to improve the long-term stability of Chia’s low concentration
`atropine solution.” Pet., 26.
`
`’787 Patent Ground 2: Chia, Akorn, and Lund
`•
`“To determine the suitable pH levels, a POSA would have looked to FDA-
`approved atropine ophthalmic solutions. As a result, a POSA would have been
`motivated to use Akorn’s pH range of 3.5-6.0 for the low-concentration
`formulation disclosed in Chia.” Pet., 43.
`
`•
`
`“Akorn discloses several buffering agents to ‘provide a pH of from about 4.8 to
`about 6.4.’” Pet., 44.
`
`’787 Patent Ground 3: Akorn, Wu, and Kondritzer
`•
`“[A] POSA would have been motivated to use Akorn’s pH range of 3.5-6.0 for
`the low-concentration formulation disclosed in Wu.” Pet., 49.
`
`•
`
`“Akorn’s buffer system, which maintains a pH of 3.5-6.0, would have been an
`obvious choice to optimize the long-term stability of Wu’s low concentration
`atropine solution.” Pet., 50.
`
`Pet., 22 (Grounds); POR, 1, 26, 29-30; Surreply, 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner Relied on Akorn to Disclose Using
`a “Buffer System” to Maintain pH (3.5 to 6.0)
`
`‘557 Patent Ground 1: Chia, Akorn and Kondritzer
`•
`“Akorn’s buffer system, which maintains a pH of 3.5-6.0, would have been an
`obvious choice to improve the long-term stability of Chia’s low concentration
`atropine solution.” 415Pet., 26.
`
`‘557 Patent Ground 2: Chia, Akorn and Lund
`•
`“Akorn’s buffer system and pH range would have been an obvious choice to
`improve the long-term stability of Chia’s low concentration atropine solution.”
`415Pet., 43.
`
`‘557 Patent Ground 3: Akorn, Wu, and Kondritzer
`•
`“Akorn’s buffer system, which maintains a pH of 3.5-6.0, would have been an
`obvious choice to optimize the long-term stability of Wu’s low concentration
`atropine solution.” 415Pet., 50.
`
`IPR2022-00415 Pet., 23 (Grounds); POR, 1, 25-26, 29-30; Surreply, 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner Relied on Akorn to Disclose Using
`a “Buffer System” to Maintain pH (3.5 to 6.0)
`‘145 Patent Introduction
`•
`“Akorn, discloses a buffering system for maintaining atropine stability (at
`higher concentrations) by providing a pH range very close to the one claimed
`(i.e., pH 3.8-6.4)….” 414Pet., 2.
`
`‘145 Patent Ground 1: Chia and Akorn
`•
`“Well aware of Akorn’s use of a pH range of 3.5-6.0 for its 1% atropine
`solution, a POSA would have been motivated to try and use Akorn’s buffering
`system to achieve the same pH range for Chia’s low-concentration atropine
`solution.” 414Pet., 23.
`
`•
`
`“In selecting a suitable buffer system for long-term stability of atropine
`solutions, a POSA would have looked to FDA-approve atropine ophthalmic
`solutions….Importantly, Akorn discloses dibasic sodium phosphate and
`monobasic sodium phosphate as buffering agents.” 414Pet., 25-26.
`
`‘145 Patent Ground 2: Wu and Akorn
`•
`“Akorn’s buffer system would have been an obvious choice to optimize the
`long-term stability of Wu’s low concentration atropine solution.” 414Pet., 45.
`
`IPR2022-00414 Pet., 21 (Grounds); POR, 1, 25-26. 29-30; Surreply, 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose Buffering
`
`EX2003, ¶71.
`
`EX1004.
`
`POR, 31-32; Surreply, 1-2.
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Phosphates Are Not Always Buffering
`
`EX2003, ¶34.
`
`EX2003, ¶34.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 19, 22; Surreply, 11.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose Buffering
`Dr. Byrn: The only potential buffering agent is the phosphate salts:
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 61:8-14.
`
`EX1004.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`POR, 1, 22-23, 26, 36; Surreply, 1.
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose Buffering
`Concentrations/ratios required to show a weak acid is buffering:
`
`EX2003, ¶72.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 23, 31-32, 34-35; Surreply, 1-2, 4-5.
`14
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose Buffering
`
`EX2003, ¶35; see also id. ¶¶8, 101-02.
`
`EX2003, ¶80.
`
`EX1038, 3; EX2003, ¶¶57, id., 59, 104.
`POR, 22, 32, 42-43; id., 23, 31-32, 36; Surreply, 1-2, 4-5.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose Buffering
`It is undisputed that Akorn discloses NO phosphate salt concentrations:
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 53:20-23.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 54:17-20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 26, 32; Surreply, 1-2, 4-5.
`
`16
`
`
`
`•
`
`Petitioner Misconstrued Akorn
`Akorn’s pH is “adjusted”:
`Petitioner implies Akorn’s
`phosphates provide pH (3.5 to
`• Using hydrochloric acid and/or
`6.0):
`sodium hydroxide
`• Not:
`“Akorn further discloses that
`‐ Benzalkonium chloride
`dibasic sodium phosphate,
`‐ Dibasic sodium phosphate
`monobasic sodium phosphate,
`hydrochloric acid and/or sodium
`‐ Edetate disodium
`hydroxide ‘may be added to adjust
`‐ Hypromellose (2910)
`pH (3.5 to 6.0).’”
`‐ Monobasic sodium phosphate
`“Accordingly, Akorn discloses
`several buffering agents to
`‘provide a pH of from about 4.8 to
`about 6.4,’” as in claim 1.
`
`•
`
`Pet., 30-31; id., 44, 53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 21-22, 26-27, 32-35; Surreply, 2.
`
`17
`
`EX1004.
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose Buffering
`Dr. Laskar: Akorn uses HCl/NaOH to adjust pH to comply with USP
`
`EX2003, ¶73.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 21-22, 26, 33-35; Surreply, 2.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose Buffering
`Dr. Byrn agrees the pH adjustor is HCl/NaOH:
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 50:14-51:2.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 59:1-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 22, 26, 33-35; Surreply, 2.
`19
`
`
`
`Akorn/USP Solution pH Limits Do Not Overlap with the
`Phosphate Buffering Range in Dr. Byrn’s Reference
`
`Dr. Byrn relied on Waterman Table 8
`for ±1 pH unit buffering range:
`
`EX1002 (Byrn Declaration), ¶53.
`
`EX1040 (“Waterman”), Table 8, 23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 2, 15, 23; Surreply, 5.
`20
`
`
`
`Akorn/USP Solution pH Limits Do Not Overlap with the
`Phosphate Buffering Range in Dr. Byrn’s Reference
`
`Petitioner’s references confirm ± 1 pH unit buffer range:
`
`EX1038 (“Pfannkoch”), 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`POR, 14-15, 23, 36, 42-43; Surreply, 7-8.
`
`
`
`Akorn/USP Solution pH Limits Do Not Overlap with the
`Phosphate Buffering Range in Dr. Byrn’s Reference
`
`Dr. Laskar agreed with Dr. Byrn’s references’ ± 1 buffer range:
`
`EX1078 (Laskar Deposition), 40:12-22; see also id., 39:7-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Surreply, 7.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Phosphate Salts Are Not Always Buffering Agents
`
`EX2003, ¶¶34-36; id., ¶¶53-54, 60.
`
`EX1001, 3:52-62; see also id. 7:60-8:3, 44:54-67, 96:43-53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 19, 42-43; Surreply, 2, 11.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Dr. Byrn’s Buffering Arguments Are Premised on
`Departing from the Buffering Range
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 96:5-9.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 95:5-10.
`
`POR, 2-3, 39-40; Surreply, 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Judge Stark Previously Rejected Dr. Byrn’s Attempts
`to Go Beyond the Buffer Range
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“the effective pKa range is ±1, not ±2 as Dr. Byrn asserted (but for which he did
`not provide corroborating evidence).” EX2010, ¶66
`“pKas outside the pH range of ±1 of the formulation, which would render it
`ineffective as a buffer.” EX2010, ¶¶66, 40.
`“The useful pH range of a buffer is approximately pKa ± 1 pH unit” and “[o]utside
`this range, there is not enough of either the weak acid or the weak base to react
`with added base or acid.” EX2010, ¶63.
`“it is generally accepted that a solution has a useful buffer capacity provided the
`value of [salt]/[acid] lies within the range of 10 to 0.1” such that “a particular acid
`can be employed for making useful buffer solutions of pH laying with the range of
`pKa –1 to pKa +1.” EX2010, ¶64.
`“[T]he solution will have little capacity to neutralize any base added to or
`generated in the solution” if “the pKa of a weak acid is below one unit from the pH
`of the solution.” EX2010, ¶65.
`“literature such as the Harris reference states that ‘outside of pKa ± 1 pH unit,
`there is not enough of either the weak acid or the weak base to react with added
`base or acid.’” EX2010, ¶195.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 40-42; Surreply, 7-9.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Outside Buffering Range It Is An Unbuffered Solution
`
`EX1078 (Laskar Deposition), 41:1-11.
`
`EX1078 (Laskar Deposition), 213:15-24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Surreply, 4, 6-7, 13.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Do Not Remedy Akorn’s Deficiencies
`
`Unlike the challenged patents, Akorn/USP pH Limits (3.5 to 6.0) provide no
`direction to buffer within phosphate buffering range (2-3.1, 6.2-8.2).
`
`EX2003, ¶81.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 31, 35; Surreply, 10-11, 24.
`
`27
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Do Not Remedy Akorn’s Deficiencies
`
`Claims allow buffering agent to include additional ingredients:
`
`EX1001, claims.
`
`EX2003 (Laskar Declaration) ¶38.
`
`EX1078 (Laskar Deposition) 149:12-19.
`
`POR, 37-38; Surreply, 10-11, 24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument Undermines Its Own Motivation
`Petition proposed to increase and optimize patient comfort:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“The claimed range…known and used for decades to increase stability and patient
`comfort….” Pet., 1.
`“Chia’s clinical success would have provided motivation to make and use low-
`concentration atropine formulations at optimal pH levels for patient comfort and
`stability.” Pet., 23; Pet., 42-43.
`• POSA motivated to avoid “patient discomfort and irritation.” Pet., 27.
`•
`“However, overly acidic pH was known to be a problem for patient comfort in
`ophthalmic solutions. A POSA would therefore have targeted the higher end of
`Akorn's stability range and been motivated to use a pH range of about 5 to about 6
`to optimize stability in view of patient comfort. Pet., 31, 53; 414Pet., 40; 415Pet.,
`39.
`“In view of Lund, a POSA would have targeted the higher end of Akorn’s stability
`range and been motivated to use a pH range of about 5 to about 6 to optimize
`stability in view of patient comfort. Thus, a POSA would have recognized that a pH
`range of 3.5-6.0 was likely optimal to achieve these twin goals.” Pet., 44-45.
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`POR, 30, 43; Surreply, 4, 13.
`
`
`
`Dr. Byrn: Atropine Stability is a
`“Predictable Function” of pH and Temperature
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 33:20-34:3.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 35:1-7.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition) 37:18-24.
`
`POR, 10, 44; see also EX2009, 144:1-2 (“we know that optimum stability is more like pH 4”).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`30
`
`
`
`Akorn Does Not Disclose the Solution’s pH
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 134:6-17.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 134:6-17
`
`POR, 1, 26, 34-35; Surreply, 2; see also POR, 54; EX2009, 57:1-13 (departure from USP limits would have “serious consequences”).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`31
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 59:1-12.
`
`
`
`Dr. Byrn Proposed to adjust pH to 4-5.4
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition) 41:7-42:6; id., 144:23-145:13 (pH 4.5).
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition) 144:1-15.
`
`POR, 10, 14, 44, 54; Surreply, 4, 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument Undermines Its Own Motivation
`
`Buffering Akorn’s pH at 4-5.4 would decrease patient comfort:
`
`EX1019 (Remington), 52.
`
`EX2003, ¶62.
`
`EX1019 (Remington), 54.
`
`POR, 3, 10-13, 28-29, 46-48; Surreply, 4, 13-15; see also EX2003, ¶¶45, 62-68, 101, 106-09, 130.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Argument Undermines Its Own Motivation
`
`Buffering Akorn’s pH at 4-5.4 would decrease patient comfort:
`
`EX1078 (Laskar Deposition) 212:1-6.
`
`EX2003, ¶117.
`
`EX1078 (Laskar Deposition) 213:15-24.
`
`POR, 3, 14, 44; Surreply, 4, 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Petitioner Failed to Justify Buffering at Acidic pH
`
`The Petition asserted atropine was already stable at pH 3.5-6.0:
`
`Pet., 34; see also EX2009 (Byrn Deposition) 37:18-38:1.
`
`Pet., 31.
`
`Surreply, 4, 13; see also POR, 10, 19-20, 44-45; EX2003 (Laskar Declaration) ¶¶114-16, 118, 134, 143.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Petitioner Failed to Justify Buffering at Acidic pH
`
`The Board already recognized aqueous atropine at pH 5-6 provides
`adequate shelf-life:
`
`Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis IPR2022-00964, Paper 7, 11-12, 24; Surreply, 4, 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Low-Concentration Atropine
`Ophthalmic Solutions Disclose No Buffering
`Instead of buffering, they were diluted in distilled water or saline:
`
`EX1013 (Fang 2010), 2.
`
`EX1012 (Lee 2006), 2.
`
`EX1009 (Wu 2007), [0036].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1015 (Wu 2011), 2.
`
`POR, 8-10, 27-28; EX2003,¶¶93-97.
`
`37
`
`
`
`Diluted Atropine Solutions Disclose No Buffering
`
`EX2003 (Laskar Declaration), ¶93.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`EX2003 (Laskar Declaration), ¶93.
`
`POR, 7-9, 45-46; Surreply, 13-14.
`
`
`
`No Dispute Dilution Does Not Buffer
`Dr. Byrn concedes the solutions are diluted with distilled water or saline
`• EX1002, ¶¶33-35; EX2009, 64:19-69:9.
`Dr. Byrn readily concedes that distilled water and saline are not buffers
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 64:15-18.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 67:10-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`POR, 8-10, 27-28, 45-46.
`
`
`
`Chia Did Not Add Any Buffer
`
`Chia’s atropine solution was administered daily for two years:
`
`Chia’s solutions consisted of atropine and BAK:
`
`EX1003 (“Chia”), 1.
`
`Dr. Byrn agrees BAK is not a buffering agent
`
`EX1003 (“Chia”), 2.
`
`EX2009 (Byrn Deposition), 61:9-14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`POR, 8, 22-23, 26, 27-28, 44-45; Surreply, 1.
`
`
`
`Wu Added No Buffer to Topical Ocular Atropine
`
`EX2003 (Laskar Declaration), ¶89; EX1006 (“Wu”), [0044].
`
`POR, 9-10, 24-25, 54-55; Surreply, 16; see also EX2003, ¶¶88-89.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Wu’s Laundry List Provides
`No Direction to Buffer Ophthalmic Atropine
`
`Wu’s pharmaceutical laundry list.
`
`Wu is not limited to ophthalmic solutions
`
`EX1006 (“Wu”), [0043].
`
`EX1006 (“Wu”), [0040].
`
`EX1078 (Laskar Deposition), 186:19-24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`POR, 24, 54; Surreply, 16; EX2003, ¶¶88-89.
`
`
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
