Interference No. 104,101
Page 18
Paicely testify that the results of the analysis lead him to conclude that Mr. Cullinan had correctly
identified the structure of the compound being tested.
F43. Mr. Paicely’s declaration testimony states that on “March 7, 1993” he entered P-chem
request No 469823 and lot No. C12-AMF-266. (EX 1158, ¶ 13). In contrast, P-chem request
469823 bears a notation of “23 March 93" under the heading “DATE SUB.” (EX 1211, Bates
No. 3071). Similarly, Mr. Cullinan testified that he submitted P-chem request 469823 for
analysis on March 23, 1993. (EX 1152,¶ 38).
F44. Lilly has submitted redacted copies of pages 166 and 167 from Mr. Paicely’s notebook.
(EX 1231, Bates Nos. 3201 and 3202 respectively). Near the top of page 166 there is a notation
that appears to be “25 March 1993.” Near the middle of page 166 there appears to be the
notation “26 March 1993.” At the bottom of the page is the notation “7 Mar 93.” Next to the “7
Mar 93" notation is the following “G. Cullinan R2A C12-AMF-266.”
F45. Lilly states that a poor photocopy of Mr. Paicely’s notebook page 166 resulted in the “27
Mar 93" date being cut off such that it reads “7 Mar 93.” (Lilly Reply Brief, Paper No. 205, p.
13). Lilly, however, has not directed our attention to an accurate photocopy of the lab notebook
page.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007