Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________________________________
`
`Case No. PGR2018-00048
`
`Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.,
`
`and the P.F. Laboratories, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________________________________________
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`DEPOSITION OF
`
`WALTER G. CHAMBLISS, PhD
`
`April 23, 2019
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`Job No. 159613
`
`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
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` CHAMBLISS
`INDEX:
` PAGE:
`Examination by Mr. LaRosa . . . . . . . . . . 4
`
`EXHIBITS:
`Deposition Exhibit Number 2027
` Marked for Identification . . . . . . . . 85
`Deposition Exhibit Number 2028
` Marked for Identification . . . . . . . . 95
`Deposition Exhibit Number 2029
` Marked for Identification . . . . . . . . 99
`Deposition Exhibit Number 2030
` Marked for Identification . . . . . . . . 113
`
`Previously Marked Deposition Exhibit Number 1001
` Introduced to the Witness . . . . . . . . 4
`Previously Marked Deposition Exhibit Number 1002
` Introduced to the Witness . . . . . . . . 133
`Previously Marked Deposition Exhibit Number 1087
` Introduced to the Witness . . . . . . . . 5
`Previously Marked Deposition Exhibit Number 2030
` Introduced to the Witness . . . . . . . . 28
`
`Certificate of Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
`Certificate of Court Reporter . . . . . . . . 159
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Reported by: Christine K. Herman, RPR, CRR
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ROBINS KAPLAN
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`By: Christopher Pinahs, Esquire
` Jake Holdreith, Esquire
` For the Petitioner
`
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, New York 10281
`By: Gasper LaRosa, Esquire
` For the Patent Owner
`
` CHAMBLISS
`
`Page 4
`
` THE DEPOSITION OF WALTER G. CHAMBLISS,
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
` CHAMBLISS
` Q And you understand we're here today to
`talk about a supplemental declaration that you
`submitted with respect to the validity of that
`patent?
` A Yes.
` Q I'll hand you what's been marked
`previously as Collegium Exhibit 1087.
` (Previously Marked Deposition Exhibit
`Number 1087 introduced to the witness.)
` Q Do you recognize Exhibit 1087?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q What do you recognize it to be?
` A My supplemental declaration.
` Q And can you describe for me how you went
`about preparing the supplemental declaration?
` A Yes. I reviewed certain materials and
`wrote the declaration.
` Q Okay. What materials did you review?
` A Dr. Constantinides' declaration,
`supplemental declaration, deposition testimony of
`Dr. Constantinides, and some claim construction
`exhibits from the district court case.
` Q You offer some -- I'm sorry.
` A That's all I can remember right now. If I
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`PhD, taken on this 23rd day of April, 2019, at the
`
`law offices of Robins Kaplan, 800 LaSalle Avenue,
`
`Suite 2800, Minneapolis, Minnesota, commencing at
`
`approximately 8:27 a.m.
`
`Whereupon,
`
` WALTER G. CHAMBLISS, PhD,
`
` a witness in the above-entitled matter,
`
` after having been first duly sworn,
`
` deposes and says as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. LaROSA:
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Chambliss.
`
` A Good morning.
`
` Q I'm going to hand you what was previously
`
`marked as Collegium Exhibit 1001.
`
` (Previously Marked Deposition Exhibit
`
`Number 1001 introduced to the witness.)
`
` Q Do you recognize that to be a copy of the
`
`'961 patent?
`
` A I do.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Page 7
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`remember something else, I'll let you know.
` Q And you offer an opinion that PGGs are not
`gelling agents?
` A Yes.
` Q And it's your opinion that there's no
`discussion in the prior art about PGGs being gelling
`agents?
` A As far as I know.
` Q Did you ever do any searching to try to
`identify any prior art that discusses the use of
`PGGs as gelling agents?
` A I did -- I looked at prior art about PGGs.
`I did not see any discussion about them being
`gelling agents.
` Q What prior art did you look at concerning
`PGGs with respect to whether or not they were
`gelling agents?
` A The prior art that's in -- cited in my
`declaration, the supplemental declaration, my
`original declaration, Dr. Constantinides'
`declaration, all the documents that are in the
`record.
` Q Okay. You didn't do a separate search to
`try to identify whether anyone in the prior art
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`before the earliest priority date of the '961 patent
`had discussed the use of PGGs as gelling agents,
`correct?
` A Correct.
` Q Despite not having done that search, you
`feel confident that you can offer an opinion that
`PGGs have never been used as gelling agents?
` A I would not say that someone never
`described it as a gelling agent. Based on my
`experience working with them and the literature I'm
`aware of, they are not gelling agents.
` Q Okay. Why would somebody have described
`them as gelling agents if they couldn't be used as
`gelling agents?
` A I'd have to see the context of how they
`describe it. It could have been in a totally
`different context.
` Q Would you be shocked if there's a piece of
`prior art out there that discusses PGGs as gelling
`agents?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I do not have to review the piece of prior
`art.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) So you wouldn't be
`
`Page 9
`
`Page 8
`
` CHAMBLISS
`surprised if there's prior art out there that says
`that PGGs could be used as gelling agents; is that
`right?
` MR. PINAHS: Same objection.
` A I wouldn't expect any, but I would tell
`you what I think it says if you show me a piece of
`prior art.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) I'm just asking,
`generally, do you think, as a general matter, it
`would surprising to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art to find a piece of prior art to the '961
`patent that discusses the use of PGGs as gelling
`agents?
` A Again, it depends on the context. If
`they're talking about adding it to water and causing
`the water to gel, I wouldn't expect to see that.
`I've not seen that before.
` Q Okay. In what context -- do you think
`there would be context where people could discuss
`the use of PGGs as gelling agents?
` A I don't know. I don't want to speculate
`on that.
` If you have a piece of prior art you want
`me to look at? I'll be --
`
`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
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
` Q I have a couple pieces of prior art we'll
`talk about, but I'm asking, before we talk about
`those -- you seem to offer a pretty straightforward
`opinion that you don't think PGGs could ever be used
`as gelling agents, and I want to know whether
`that's, in fact, what you believe, that it would be
`surprising that PGGs could ever be used as gelling
`agents.
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I'd just like to see the art, and I'll
`discuss that art.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) So you're refusing to
`answer my question about whether it would be
`surprising that PGGs could be used as gelling
`agents?
` A In the context of adding PGG to water, to
`have the water to gel, so that it would not be
`syringible, I would be surprised.
` Q Okay. Outside of that very limited focus,
`do you think that anyone could ever consider PGGs to
`work inside a formulation as a gelling agent?
` MR. PINAHS: October. Form.
` A I disagree that that's a limited -- that
`is the focus of this patent.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`3
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) The focus of this patent
`is taking one excipient and adding water to it and
`seeing whether you can syringe it or not? That's
`what you thought the focus of the patent was?
` A No. The focus of gelling agents in the
`patent -- as we discussed in my previous deposition,
`the patent clearly describes what a gelling agent
`is, and the function of the gelling agent is to
`increase the viscosity of the solvent, usually
`water, that's used to potentially abuse a dosage
`form.
` Q Can you find the definition of gelling
`agents in the patent?
` A Yes.
` Q And once you find it, can you tell us
`where in the patent it's located?
` A The first place I would say is in the
`abstract.
` Q You see the abstract as having a
`definition of gelling agents?
` A Yes. I think it informs a person of
`ordinary skill in the art what a gelling agent means
`in the context of this patent.
` What it says is, The dosage form further
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`including a gelling agent in an effective amount --
`so the amount of the gelling agent to impart a
`viscosity unsuitable for administration, selected
`from the group consisting of parenteral and nasal
`administration.
` Q So --
` A That's the first part.
` To a solubilized mixture formed when the
`dosage form is crushed and mixed with from about 0.5
`to about 10 ml of an aqueous liquid.
` I take it, from the abstract, it's clear
`that the function of the gelling agent is to
`increase the viscosity of the aqueous liquid so that
`it cannot be nasally or parenterally administered.
` And then there's other places that talks
`about gelling agent.
` Column 3, starting with line 11, it says,
`In certain embodiments of the present invention, the
`dosage form comprises an aversive agent such as a
`gelling agent to discourage an abuser from tampering
`with the dosage form and thereafter inhaling,
`injecting and/or swallowing the tampered dosage
`form. Preferably, the gelling agent is released
`when the dosage form is tampered with and provides a
`
`Page 13
`
`Page 12
`
` CHAMBLISS
`gel-like quality to the tampered dosage form which
`slows the absorption of the opioid analgesic so that
`the abuser is less likely to obtain a high. In
`certain preferred embodiments, when the dosage form
`is tampered with and exposed to a small amount (for
`example, less than about 10 ml) of an aqueous liquid
`(for example, water) the dosage form will be
`unsuitable for injection and/or inhalation.
` Then in column 3, line 39, When nasally
`inhaling the tampered dosage form, the gelling agent
`can become gel like upon administration to the nasal
`passages through the moisture of the mucous
`membranes. This also makes such formulations
`aversive to nasal administration, as the gel will
`stick to the nasal passage and minimize absorption
`of the abusable substance.
` Then in column 6, line 64, In certain
`embodiments of the present invention wherein the
`dosage form includes an aversive agent comprising a
`gelling agent, various gelling agents can be
`employed including, for example and without
`limitation ...
` And it lists several gelling agents.
` Then in column 7, line 24, With the
`
`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
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`inclusion of a gelling agent in the dosage form,
`when dosage form is tampered with, the gelling agent
`preferably imparts a gel-like quality to the
`tampered dosage form which preferably spoils or
`hinders the pleasure of obtaining a rapid high from
`the tampered dosage form due to the gel like
`consistency in contact with the mucous membrane.
` Then in column 7, line 42, In certain
`other embodiments, the dosage form forms a viscous
`gel after the dosage form is tampered with,
`dissolved in aqueous liquid (from about 0.5 to about
`10 ml, and preferably from 1 to about 5 ml) causing
`the resulting mixture to have a viscosity of at
`least 10 cP. Most preferably, the resulting mixture
`will have a viscosity of about 60 cP.
` And then column 7, line 49, In certain
`other embodiments, the dosage form forms a viscous
`gel after the dosage form is tampered with,
`dissolved in aqueous liquid (from about 0.5 to about
`10 ml and preferably from about 1 to about 5 ml) and
`then heated (for example, greater than about
`45 degrees C) causing the resulting mixture to have
`a viscosity of at least about 10 cP. Most
`preferably, the resulting mixture will have a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`4
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`viscosity of at least about 60 cP.
` I'll stop. I think that's the last time
`it describes gelling agent, but I could be wrong.
` Q Okay. You didn't mention column 5, right
`around line 35.
` Do you see that there's the words "gelling
`agent" in quotes?
` A Yes. That would have been a good one.
`Yes. I'm sorry.
` Column 5, line 32, The term "gelling
`agent" as used herein includes a compound or a
`composition used to impart gel-like or thickening
`quality to a tampered dosage form upon the addition
`of moisture or liquid.
` Q Do you understand that that's a definition
`of the term "gelling agent" as it's used in this
`patent?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I think everything I talked about is
`describing the gelling agent.
` Here they're describing the gelling agent
`consistent with every place else I described the
`gelling agent.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) So when you say
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`"everything else you read," are you saying that, in
`order to be a gelling agent, you have to -- it has
`to swell in 10 milliliters of water?
` A No. I think that was an example.
` Q Okay. So you're not saying that, in order
`to be a gelling agent, you have to meet all the
`requirements of everything you just read into the
`record, correct?
` A I think it has to have the function of
`being an aversive agent, which means it needs to
`swell in the solvent, which would be water, most
`likely, in this case. An aqueous fluid, as the
`patent describes.
` Q So if you snort it and it swells, that's
`not an aversive agent?
` A It gave that example of another preferred
`embodiment would be when you snort it and it gels.
` Q So I guess what I'm -- you seem to suggest
`that it has to swell in water. I'm asking --
` A Well, that's why it swells in the nose,
`because the nasal fluid is aqueous. So I think
`those are very consistent.
` Q Okay. When you are trying to figure out
`whether something's a gelling agent or not, what
`
`Page 17
`
`Page 16
`
` CHAMBLISS
`definition do you use to figure out whether it's a
`gelling agent?
` A The definition that I was taught in school
`and teach my graduate students and use consistently
`through my 30 years of experience: It's something
`that forms a gel, in aqueous solution, in this case.
` Q Is it something that would impart a
`gel-like quality to a formulation when it's in the
`presence of an aqueous solution?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A It depends on how that gel-like quality --
`that's kind of a loose term. It increases the
`viscosity of a solution by forming a gel.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) So are you saying it has
`to meet some technical definition of it being a gel,
`as opposed to just having a gel-like quality?
` A I don't know what you're meaning "with a
`gel-like quality."
` Q How did you read the definition when it
`says "gel-like or thickening agent"?
` What did you understand that to mean?
` A Thickening the aqueous fluid. Increasing
`the viscosity of the fluid, not of itself. It's
`increasing the viscosity of the fluid.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
` Q The definition says gel-like or
`thickening. Doesn't that suggest that those two
`things are different?
` A Not to me.
` Q So you give no meaning to the word
`"gel-like"? It just absolutely has to thicken?
`That's the only way it can be a gel, under your
`definition?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A Could you repeat that, please?
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Do you give any separate
`meaning to the words -- to the phrase "gel-like" as
`opposed to the word "thickening"?
` MR. PINAHS: Same objection.
` A Not in that passage, column 5, line 32
`through 36. I think they're using those as
`synonyms.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) So under your definition
`of gelling agent, the agent has to thicken the
`solution?
` A Yes.
` Q And in your opinion, if you added any PGG
`that's currently known to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art to an aqueous solution, none of those
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`5
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`would thicken the solution; is that right?
` A Could you repeat that, please?
` Q Are you aware of any PGG that, when added
`to an aqueous solution, would thicken that solution?
` A Not that I know of, that was available in
`2001. Is that what you're asking me?
` Q Are there any available today?
` A Not that I know of, but I was just -- I
`didn't understand your question.
` Are you talking about as of the priority
`date or --
` Q I was asking whether you are currently
`aware of any PGG that could increase the viscosity
`of an aqueous solution.
` A I'm not aware of PGG using -- being used
`as a gelling agent to increase the viscosity of a
`solution.
` Q I'm not asking if you know that somebody
`tried to do that. I'm asking whether you're aware
`of any PGG that has that capability, to increase the
`viscosity of an aqueous solution.
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I'm not aware of it.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Are you affirmatively
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`aware that no PGG can increase the viscosity of an
`aqueous solution?
` A No.
` Q You just don't know, one way or the other,
`whether PGGs can increase the viscosity of a
`solution, correct?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I'll say, all the documents that we've
`seen in this record, there's no indication that it's
`a gelling agent that has that property.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Okay. So if I put some
`documents in front of you from before the priority
`date that say PGGs act as gelling agents, would that
`change your opinion?
` A As I said, I need to see the document, and
`I can tell you what I think.
` Q Is it possible it would change your
`opinion?
` A No.
` Q There's no way you're going to change your
`opinion as to whether PGGs are gelling agents in
`this case, no matter what you see; isn't that
`correct, Doctor?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`
`Page 21
`
`Page 20
`
` CHAMBLISS
` A No. Let me see the art, and I'll talk
`about what the art says.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Okay. So it's possible
`that you'll change your opinion as to whether PGGs
`are a gelling agent based on what I put in front of
`you today, correct?
` MR. PINAHS: Same objection.
` A I don't know until I see it.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Okay. Is there anything
`about your supplemental declaration that, subsequent
`to you signing it, you think needs to be changed or
`amended?
` A I saw one typo.
` Q Okay. Can you point that out to us?
` A Yes. I'll find it. It's in paragraph 37,
`the second line. Let me just read the sentence, and
`then I'll make the correction.
` As an initial matter, I understand that
`Dr. Constantinides conceded that his supplemental
`declaration does address numerous Gelucires ...
` I'll just stop there. The correction
`should be, As an initial matter, I understand that
`Dr. Constantinides conceded that his supplemental
`declaration does not address numerous Gelucires. So
`
`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
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`insert the word "not."
` Q You're not aware of anything else that
`needs to be -- any other typos or changes?
` A No. If I see anything, I'll let you know.
` Q Okay. Thanks.
` Did you prepare for your deposition today?
` A Yes.
` Q What did you do to prepare?
` A Read the materials, read my declaration.
` Q Anything else?
` A Met with the two attorneys here yesterday.
` Q For how long?
` A Maybe four hours.
` Q Okay. Did you meet with anyone else?
` A No.
` Q Have you discussed the substance of your
`testimony or declarations with anyone other than
`your lawyers?
` A No.
` Q Did you review -- I think you said you
`reviewed Dr. Constantinides' supplemental
`declaration, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Did you review Purdue's response?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`6
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
` A I don't recall that. Unless it's cited
`here. I just don't remember one way or another.
` Q I'm not trying to trick you. I don't
`remember if it's there, either. I'm just seeing if
`you remember.
` A If it is, I did.
` Q Okay. You offer some opinions in your
`supplemental declaration about the definition of
`homogeneous mixture?
` A Yes.
` Q Why does it matter?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I don't think it ultimately matters for my
`opinions, but Dr. Constantinides' opinion is that a
`homogeneous mixture has a special definition, and I
`disagree.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Do you think that the
`validity analysis can come out different, one way or
`the other, based on which construction the board
`comes up with?
` A I think that the patent -- the claims are
`not enabled, no matter which definition the board
`rules. I think, with Dr. Constantinides'
`definition, it's even less information in the patent
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`than it would be under my definition, which is
`hardly any information at all.
` Q Do you agree that the homogeneous mixture
`definition is totally irrelevant to the written
`description analysis?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A Again, I think they failed to meet the
`written description requirements, as they didn't
`invent what claim 1 says those limitations. And I
`think that would be true under either construction.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Okay. But you're not
`saying that -- you're not saying that there's a
`failure of description in the patent of creating a
`homogeneous mixture under your definition, correct?
` A Under my definition? I think they did
`make a homogeneous mixture. They at least made
`mixtures.
` It wasn't with the claimed ingredients,
`but they made mixtures that are homogeneous, or
`would be expected to be.
` Q And you're not arguing that --
` So what's your definition of what a
`homogeneous mixture is?
` A It's paragraph 8 of my supplemental
`
`Page 25
`
`Page 24
`
` CHAMBLISS
`declaration. Homogeneous mixture is a mixture where
`the ingredients are uniformly distributed and need
`not form a single phase.
` Q So is it fair to say the only the
`difference between your definition and
`Dr. Constantinides' definition is whether or not the
`mixture has to be single phase or multi-phase?
` A I think that's fair.
` Q And your definition doesn't require it to
`be a single phase?
` A No. Could be, but it's not required.
` Q So that sort of goes to my question.
` Your definition is broader than
`Dr. Constantinides' definition, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q And it includes single phase mixtures,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. Do you agree that it's easier to
`make your mixture than it is to make
`Dr. Constantinides' mixture?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A Just in general?
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Yeah.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. And it takes less skill from a
`person of ordinary skill in the art to make a
`homogeneous mixture under your definition than it
`does under Dr. Constantinides' definition, correct?
` A Well, my definition includes his
`definition. So if you're just making a homogeneous
`mixture that's not a single phase, it's easier than
`if you're making one with a single phase. But my
`definition covers both.
` Q Okay. So with your enablement arguments,
`it's easier to enable the claims under your
`definition than it is under Dr. Constantinides'
`definition, correct?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I'm not discounting anything I've said
`about lack of enablement. I think that's true.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) So if the board were to
`accept your definition of homogeneous mixture, it
`would make the burden for which the patent owner
`needs to show that the claims are enabled, or rebut
`the not enablement argument, make it easier for the
`patent owner, correct?
` A I wouldn't say easy or not easy. I laid
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`7
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`out, in my opening declaration, the lack of
`enablement for a homogeneous mixture, and this is
`adding an extra hurdle to that.
` Q Okay. I guess what I'm trying to
`understand is --
` Well, let me ask you this: Can you
`identify anything with respect to your invalidity
`opinions where your definition of homogeneous
`mixture actually helps you?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I don't know what you mean by "helps me."
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Makes it -- strengthens
`the argument for invalidity.
` MR. PINAHS: Same objection.
` A I hadn't thought about that.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Okay. Do you think the
`board needs to decide the issue of homogeneous
`mixture in order to reach a final conclusion on --
`with respect to the validity of these claims?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I don't have an opinion on that.
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) How did you decide which
`terms to construe and which terms not to construe?
` A I don't recall. I remember, for
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
`homogeneous mixture, when I saw
`Dr. Constantinides' -- I guess it was his opening
`declaration, where he was talking about solid
`solution, I said, that's not how I see that term
`being used in the patent.
` Q Okay. In his supplemental declaration he
`didn't address the definition homogeneous mixture,
`correct?
` A I think that's correct. He had already
`done that in his opening declaration.
` Q And your opinions in paragraphs 7 through
`20 of your supplemental declaration all relate to
`the definition of homogeneous mixture, correct?
` A Which paragraphs? Sorry.
` Q 7 through 20.
` A I believe that's correct.
` Q And those opinions in paragraphs 7 to 20
`are not responding to anything that
`Dr. Constantinides addressed in his supplemental
`declaration, correct?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
` A I don't -- I'd need to look at his
`supplemental declaration with that in mind. I don't
`know.
`
`Page 29
`
`Page 28
`
` CHAMBLISS
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) I'm going to hand you
`what's been marked as Purdue Exhibit 2030.
` (Previously Marked Deposition Exhibit
`Number 2030 introduced to the witness.)
` A Thank you.
` Q And is Exhibit 2030 the supplemental
`declaration of Dr. Constantinides?
` A Yes.
` Q So can you just let me know if your
`opinions in paragraphs 7 to 20 of your supplemental
`declaration respond to anything that's set forth in
`Dr. Constantinides' supplemental declaration?
` A Okay. I haven't read this in a while, so
`I'm going to have to look it over.
` Q Okay.
` (Witness reviewing document.)
` A Okay. Just repeat the question, make sure
`I'm answering exactly what --
` Q Sure. Can you identify anything --
` Well, let me ask you this: Are your
`opinions in paragraphs 7 to 20 of your supplemental
`declaration in response to anything in
`Dr. Constantinides' supplemental declaration?
` MR. PINAHS: Objection. Form.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
` A Yes. Want me to walk through?
` Q (BY MR. LaROSA) Yeah. Walk through them.
` A Thank you.
` The first thing I would point to is
`paragraph 23. It says, By 2001, the use of
`solubilization technologies to solubilize poorly
`water-soluble APIs and oral drug products was on a
`steady rise.
` That whole section, when you read it, is
`talking about his definition of a homogeneous
`mixture. He's talking about forming a solid
`solution or molecular dispersion of the API.
` Q When you say "that whole section," are you
`saying through -- paragraphs 23 through 25?
` A Yes. I'll just highlight something in 25.
` He says, In solid dispersion, the API is
`dispersed as crystalline or amorphous particles in a
`solid excipient matrix. Then, solid solutions are a
`subclass of solid dispersions.
` He said that, Solid dispersions are
`manufactured primarily by spray drying or hot melt
`extrusion.
` Q Let's just deal with these one section at
`a time.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`8
`
`Purdue 2038
`Collegium v. Purdue, PGR2018-00048
`
`

`

`Page 30
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` CHAMBLISS
` A Okay.
` Q So let me just ask you a few questions
`about that.
` A Sure.
` Q So in that section, in paragraphs 23 to
`25, is the term "homogeneous mixture" mentioned even
`once?
` A I haven't word searched for it, but I
`didn't see it, reading it.
` Q You're not saying that the paragraphs 23
`through 25 address at all the definition of the
`claim term homogeneous mixture, are you?
` A Yes. I think, the way he's describing
`this in the background section, is, he's des