Page: 96
Item Objections to Wenslow Affidavit (bolded
and underlined)
Objection
Ruling
Objections to Oral Testimony
Asserted to be Related
2.
18. At the time, the DPP-IV project
team already had significant knowledge
and experience working with previous
DPP-IV inhibitor compounds. This
included a compound having the internal
code “L-221869”, which was a structural
analog of sitagliptin having a near
identical chemical structure to
Hearsay,
Opinion,
Rule 232 and
248,
Beyond the
Pleadings
Objections dismissed.
1. TT V4, Conf, P:84 L:17-20;
see Item 1.
Statements reflect documentary
evidence accepted as being
4. TT V4, Conf, P:85 L:23-P:86
L:14; see Item 1.
admissible for their truth. Rule
232/248 objection lacks foundation.
The statements are relevant to the
invention story, which was put in
issue by PMS’ pleading.
6. TT V4, Conf, P:86 L:27-P:87
L:11
sitagliptin, differing only in a single
fluorine (F) atom:
The reference to “we” in the oral
testimony is understood to mean the
DPP-IV project team.
3.
19. In considering potential salts of
sitagliptin to try, we knew that weakly
basic compounds, like sitagliptin, were
commonly formulated as the
hydrochloride salt. We also knew that
the hydrochloride salt of sitagliptin
could be made according to the process
used by the team back in June 2001.
Therefore, we believed the “natural” salt
candidate to evaluate was the
hydrochloride salt. However, the DPP-IV
team had previously made salts of L-
221869 in an effort to find a form that
would be suitable (L- 221869 free base
had issues), having no idea what salts
might form as a solid or which (if any)
would have properties making
Hearsay,
Opinion,
Rule 232 and to at the hearing.
248, Beyond
Oral objection 12 sustained; this
evidence was successfully objected
1. TT V4, Conf, P:84 L:17-20;
see Item 1.
4. TT V4, Conf, P:85 L:23-P:86
L:14; see Item 1.
Oral objections 7, 9 and part of 13
the Pleadings
(91:2 – 92:2) sustained as they relate
to specific details of the salt
formation work before Dr. Wenslow
was on the project that do not clearly
arise from the documentary
evidence.
5. TT V4, Conf, P:86 L:19-24
6. TT V4, Conf, P:86 L:27-P:87
L:11; see Item 2.
7. TT V4, Conf, P:87 L:27-P:88
L:11
Oral objection 11 dismissed as it is
uncontroversial and explains a
comment made during testimony.
8. TT V4, Conf, P:88 L:19-24;
see Item 1.
The remaining objections are
dismissed. The reliability of these
statements arise from the
9. TT V4, Conf, P:89 L:1-8
them suitable as a development
candidate for further study. As a
11. TT V4, Conf, P:89 L:14-20