Interference No. 104,101
Page 28
e.g., LX 1211, PC Requests 469590 “Rose”(?) and 469823 “Ray”). Lilly has not directed our
attention to the testimony of these potential analysts.
2. Mr. Clifford Paicely’s Testimony Does Not Identify the Structure of the
Tested Compound
Clifford Paicely has testified that he has been continuously employed at Lilly as a Senior
Laboratory Technician since 1981. (EX 1158, ¶ 2). Mr. Paicely testified that his log book
demonstrates that he conducted a mass spectrometry analysis for P-chem request No. 469823 and
lot No. C12-AMF-266. (EX 1158, ¶ 13). Mr. Paicely stated that his log notebook indicates that
Mr. Cullinan was the chemist that requested the analysis. (EX 1158, ¶ 13).
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). Yet, 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). Lilly explains this discrepancy as the result of a poor photocopy of
Mr. Paicely’s notebook page. Specifically, Lilly states that the poor photocopy 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). From Lilly’s explanation of the error, we conclude that Mr. Paicely does not
independently recall the testing of Mr. Cullinan’s sample. Rather, Mr. Paicely’s testimony is an
explanation of the notations listed in Mr. Paicely’s notebook.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007