PUBLIC DOCUMENT

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

____________________________________

)

In the Matter of )

)

ECM BioFilms, Inc., ) Docket No. 9358

a corporation, also d/b/a )

Enviroplastics International ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT

 )

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S OPPOSITION 

TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ON DR. STEPHEN MCCARTHY

Complaint Counsel respectfully opposes Respondent’s Motion for Leave to Serve 

Subpoena Duces Tecum on Dr. Stephen McCarthy (the “Motion”) because Respondent’s Motion

fails to establish cause for additional document discovery beyond that already voluntarily

provided. ECM’s 21 Specifications are not narrowly drawn to produce information that would 

show bias. Instead, these redundant, unfounded, and overly-broad requests serve to harass the 

witness.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 4, 2014, Dr. McCarthy produced his expert report, along with over 150

documents that formed the basis of his opinions in this case. On June 27, ECM elicited 

approximately six hours of deposition testimony further exploring Dr. McCarthy’s basis of

opinions and possible biases. Shortly after the conclusion of the deposition, Complaint Counsel 

provided additional documents identified and discussed during the course of the deposition,

including UMass’ policy concerning commercialized intellectually property; two patents

concerning biodegradable polymers that were licensed by UMass; and a copy of the standard 

assignment agreement. CCX-A, Email from K. Johnson to respondent’s counsel dated July 7, 

2014.

07 17 2014
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

2

Despite this discovery, including Dr. McCarthy’s deposition testimony that: 

• he had no contact with Steve Mojo of BPI at least in the past year;1

• he had done no consulting work for BPI for at least two years;2

• he has no other contact with BPI members;3

• he has no knowledge that either BPI4or Metabolix5 had any contact with the 

FTC;

• his earnings related to BPI and Metabolix are limited;

6

• over 20 years, Metabolix has only funded about $1.7 million in research at 

UMass;

7

• he has no knowledge of the specific products made by Metabolix under the 

licensed patent, he has never seen a finished product, nor any marketing;

8

• he had seen no document prior to this case related to ECM;

9

• he receives no personal financial remuneration from project funding accounts

where he is principal investigator;

10 and

• he does not have the written assignment agreements regarding the patents—the 

university has them;

11

 1 CCX-B, McCarthy Dep. Transcript (June 27, 2014), at 96:16-17. 2 Id. at 97:23-25.

3 Id. at 96:18. 

4 Id. at 100. 5 Id. at 67-68. 6 Dr. McCarthy testified that the only income has presently earns from biodegradable plastics is 

through the Metabolix patent, for which he has only earned approximately $28,000 in 12 years,

id. at 60:13. Moreover, he testified that his income through his certification work at BPI was 

only about $30,000 over 10 years, id. at 97:14-20, not the $40,000 claimed by ECM in its filings. 

He also identified another approximately $5,000 as an expert witness for Metabolix in two patent 

infringement cases (in 2002 and 2005), id. at 62. 7 Id. at 66. 8 Id. at 66. 9 Id. at 66:18-24. 10 Id. at 54. Dr. McCarthy also explained that, until this year, the research funding he brings into 

UMass had no bearing on his ability to get an increase in pay. Id. at 55:7-12. And, now, at most, 

he could obtain a 1⁄2% increase in his salary for merit. Id. 55:13-22.

11 Id. at 58:17-20.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

3

ECM still argues that there must be some documents left uncovered that support its bias theory. 

The additional document requests are completely untethered from the discovery obtained during 

the deposition or the course of the case.

12 Without any foundation for additional discovery, there 

is no cause to warrant Dr. McCarthy scouring his files for additional documents.

LEGAL STANDARD

Respondent is not entitled to the additional discovery it requests. Instead, the expert 

discovery procedures set forth in Rule 3.31A, confirmed in this Court’s Order, require 

Respondent to apply to the Court and show cause to expand expert discovery beyond the report 

and deposition. 16 C.F.R. § 3.31A; Order Denying Without Prejudice Respondent’s Motion for 

Leave to Serve Subpoenas Duces Tecum (June 10, 2014), at 3. Rule 3.31A— like its Federal 

analogue, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)—makes clear that litigants’ primary tools for expert discovery 

must be the expert report and deposition. These limitations are in place to strike a “balance 

between sufficient expert disclosures and unfettered expert discovery . . . [and] were adopted to 

limit the undue burden and cost of expert discovery.” Morriss v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 8:13CV24, 

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3757, at *17 (D. Neb. Jan. 13, 2014) (denying certain requests to expand 

expert discovery beyond that permitted in Rule 26 because defendant failed to show a 

“compelling reason” for its requests). To justify use of extraordinary expert discovery, therefore, 

Respondent must show that it lacks information “relevant to the allegations of the complaint, to 

the proposed relief, or to the defenses” that it could not or did not obtain through the expert 

report and deposition. See In the Matter of Basic Research, LLC, et al., No. 9318, Order on 

 12 During this case, ECM has also issued broad subpoenas to BPI, Dr. Narayan, and Dr. Michel, 

and yet has not identified a single document demonstrating that Dr. McCarthy had any 

connection with these entities beyond what it has identified so far.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

4

Complaint Counsel’s Second Motion for Protective Order (Dec. 9, 2004), at 4. In this case, 

Respondent has not made the requisite showing.

ARGUMENT

I. Respondent Has Not Shown Cause for Additional Discovery.

Respondent requests leave to serve a 21-Specification subpoena duces tecum on Dr. 

McCarthy to “assess the full extent of Dr. McCarthy’s bias.” Motion, at 10. While ECM tries to 

paint these requests as narrowly tailored, they are not. This additional document discovery lacks 

cause for three reasons: (1) Complaint Counsel has voluntarily produced responsive documents 

to many of the specifications already, making those requests redundant; (2) Dr. McCarthy 

specifically testified he does not have several categories of documents sought in their proposed 

subpoena; and (3) ECM already has all of the arguably relevant evidence it seeks for the 

remaining specifications.

a. Responsive Documents Have Already Been Produced

Several of the Specifications in the proposed subpoena call for information and 

documents that have been in ECM’s possession for months. For example, Specification 2 calls 

for “All documents, materials, correspondence, forms, marketing material, and testing used or 

reference to form any and all opinions you may offer in this case.” Motion, Ex. RX-I, at 3. 

Similarly, Specification 14 calls for communications with the FTC concerning biodegradable 

plastics. Of course, pursuant to Rule 3.31A(c), Complaint Counsel already produced a 

comprehensive set of documents and materials relied upon by Dr. McCarthy in forming the basis 

for his expert opinion in this matter, including communications with Complaint Counsel.

14 16 

 14 Complaint Counsel also agreed to produce additional documents responsive to Specifications 

(1), (7), (9), (11), and (18) when it produced its report on June 4, 2014. See CCX-C, Complaint 

Counsel’s Response and Objs. to ECM Subpoena.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

5

C.F.R. § 3.31A(c). Respondent has not argued that Complaint Counsel failed to make the 

required production; indeed, Respondent provides no basis or explanation for these redundant 

requests. 

Additionally, after Dr. McCarthy’s deposition, we provided additional documents in Dr. 

McCarthy’s possession that were specifically discussed and identified during his deposition. 

CCX-A. ECM makes no showing or even suggests that Complaint Counsel’s production was 

incomplete, or that Dr. McCarthy did not adequately search his records for responsive materials. 

b. ECM Continues to Request Information Dr. McCarthy Does Not Have.

In addition to calling for documents already in Respondent’s possession, ECM’s 

proposed subpoena requests documents that Dr. McCarthy has repeatedly stated he does not 

have. For example, Specification 10 calls for “All pleadings, expert reports, documents, and 

correspondence related to any law suit, administrative proceeding, or arbitration in which you 

served as a consulting witness or expert witness concerning biodegradable polymers and 

plastics.” Motion, Ex. RX-I, at 5. Specification 21 similarly requests, “Regardless of date, if 

you have ever served as an expert in any other proceeding, copies of all expert reports and 

testimony given by you in those proceedings.” Id. at 7.

During Dr. McCarthy’s deposition, Respondent thoroughly covered the extent to which 

Dr. McCarthy possessed documents related to other matters in which he served as an expert 

witness. CCX-B, Tr. at 7:5-15:11. Dr. McCarthy testified that counsel in all matters except for 

the Display Technologies matter requested that he destroy the documents in his possession. Id.

at 14:22-15:4. In light of this testimony, Specification 21 lacks cause. Dr. McCarthy testified 

under oath that he has no responsive documents except for those related to Display 

Technologies. Asking him to go back and double-check is a waste of time and resources. 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

6

c. ECM Already Has the Evidence It Seeks

Respondent has not shown a need for the information it requests in its proposed 

subpoena. Indeed, Respondent spends four pages of its eleven-page Motion laying out 

“substantial” evidence of Dr. McCarthy’s alleged bias.16 Motion at 6-10. Nonetheless, 

Respondent identifies several categories of documents that it purportedly requires to complete its 

“bias analysis.” At least three of these categories, including “documents and correspondence 

between Dr. McCarthy and Metabolix, Inc.; Dr. McCarthy’s financial interests in his patents that 

were assigned to UMass; [and] Dr. McCarthy’s financial interests in grant or research money 

paid to him from ECM competitors” were thoroughly explored at Dr. McCarthy’s deposition. 

CCX-B, Tr. at 51:20-69:7. Despite ECM’s lengthy and detailed questioning of Dr. McCarthy, 

ECM does not posit that during the deposition Dr. McCarthy was elusive, or evasive; nor does it 

identify testimony supporting the existence of additional, responsive documents. ECM provides

no basis grounded in the deposition that supports further discovery. ECM motion fails to show 

cause for its additional discovery requests. See Behler v. Hanlon, 199 F.R.D. 553, 562-563 (D. 

Md. 2001) (allowing additional discovery only after deposition, if it appeared expert witness had 

been elusive or did not make a good faith effort produce documents in his possession).

CONCLUSION

ECM’s Motion articulates no cause for the subpoena to Dr. McCarthy other than a fishing 

expedition to bolster its flimsy “bias” argument, and to impose time and cost burdens on Dr. 

McCarthy and complaint counsel on the eve of trial. Respondent has not demonstrated it 

 16 ECM dramatically claims that its “effort will not be complete unless and until this Court 

ensures that ECM’s right to document discovery is not denied through administrative action.” 

Motion at 10. Respondent has no such “right,” as this Court made it very clear that “issuance of 

subpoenas by a litigant, sua sponte,” is not a right afforded by Rule 3.31A. Order Denying 

Without Prejudice Respondent’s Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoenas Duces Tecum (June 10, 

2014), at 3.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

7

requires additional discovery on this point. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should 

deny ECM’s for Leave to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum on Dr. Stephen McCarthy.

Dated: July 17, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Katherine Johnson

Katherine Johnson (kjohnson3@ftc.gov) 

Jonathan Cohen (jcohen2@ftc.gov)

Arturo DeCastro (adecastro@ftc.gov)

Elisa Jillson (ejillson@ftc.gov)

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B

Washington, DC 20580

Phone: 202-326-2185; -2551; -2747; -3001

Fax: 202-326-2551
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 17, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to 

be served as follows:

One electronic copy to the Office of the Secretary, and one copy through the FTC’s e-filing 

system (although Complaint Counsel received an error message when attempting to file):

Donald S. Clark, Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room H-159

Washington, DC 20580

Email: secretary@ftc.gov

One electronic copy and one hard copy to the Office of the Administrative Law Judge:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room H-110

Washington, DC 20580

One electronic copy to Counsel for the Respondent:

Jonathan W. Emord

Emord & Associates, P.C.

11808 Wolf Run Lane

Clifton, VA 20124

Email: jemord@emord.com

Peter Arhangelsky

Emord & Associates, P.C.

3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4

Chandler, AZ 85286

Email: parhangelsky@emord.com

Eric J. Awerbuch

Emord & Associates, P.C.

3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4 

Chandler, AZ 85286

Email: eawerbuch@emord.com

I further certify that I possess a paper copy of the signed original of the foregoing 

document that is available for review by the parties and the adjudicator.

Date: July 17, 2014

/s/ Katherine Johnson

Katherine Johnson (kjohnson3@ftc.gov) 

Jonathan Cohen (jcohen2@ftc.gov)

Arturo DeCastro (adecastro@ftc.gov)

Elisa Jillson (ejillson@ftc.gov)

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B

Washington, DC 20580

Phone: 202-326-2185; -2551; -2747; -3001

Fax: 202-326-2551
Complaint Counsel

Exhibit A

CCX-A
From: Johnson, Katherine

To: Peter Arhangelsky (PArhangelsky@emord.com); Jonathan Emord (JEmord@emord.com); Eric Awerbuch

(EAwerbuch@emord.com)

Cc: Cohen, Jonathan; Jillson, Elisa; Decastro, Arturo

Subject: ECM Dkt 9358, Subpoena to Dr. McCarthy

Date: Monday, July 07, 2014 11:36:00 AM

Attachments: US20110020227[1].pdf

US20080234754[1].pdf

Easstar Bio.mht

IntellecPropertyUML.pdf

assignment.pdf

Peter:

Based on the exploration of most of the various topics that are the basis of your subpoena at Dr.

McCarthy’s deposition, here are the responsive documents that Dr. McCarthy has in his possession. 

If there were other specific requests for documents made during the deposition, please let me

know.  I believe it was limited to (1) biodegradable patents that had been licensed; (2) assignment

agreements; and (3) the C-14 testing report for Easstar bio.  Dr. McCarthy has requested the

executed assignment agreements from the University, but is awaiting a response.

For many of the remaining requests in your subpoena, Dr. McCarthy reported he had no responsive

information.   If you believe that there is good cause for additional discovery based on the

information provided in his report or his deposition, please identify the specific requests and what

the basis is for the request.  My understanding of the rules and the court’s order is that no

additional discovery will be provided without good cause.

Katherine

_________________________________________

Katherine E. Johnson, Attorney

Division of Enforcement

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail stop M-8102B

Washington, DC 20580

Direct Dial: (202) 326-2185

Fax: (202) 326-2558

Email: kjohnson3@ftc.gov

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Complaint Counsel

Exhibit B

CCX-B
In the Matter of:

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al.

June 27, 2014

Stephen McCarthy, Ph.D.

Condensed Transcript with Word Index

For The Record, Inc.

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
1 (Pages 1 to 4)

1

1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

2 I N D E X

3

4 WITNESS: EXAMINATION:

5 Stephen McCarthy, Ph.D. By Mr. Emord 5

6 By Ms. Johnson 193

7

8 EXHIBIT: Description Page

 No. 1 Expert report and attached CV 15

9 No. 2 Chapter 9 in Plastics and the 34

 Environment

10 No. 3 Biodegradable Polymers - A 39

 Review on Recent Trends and

11 Emerging Perspectives,

 No. 4 Document entitled Center for 46

12 Biogradable Polymer Research at

 UML

13 No. 5 Document entitled Center for 49

 Biogradable Polymer Research at

14 UML

 No. 6 Patent Number 5,883,199 57

15 No. 7 Article dated 06/30/2010 94

 No. 8 UML.EDU News document dated 95

16 3/14/12

 No. 9 Hand-Drawn document 103

17 No. 10 Biodegradability of Plastics 115

 No. 11 A Review of Plastic Waste 122

18 Biodegradation

 No. 12 Microbial Population Associated 127

19 with Plastic Degradation

 No. 13 Biodegradation of Polyethylene 137

20 and Polypropylene

 No. 14 Biodegradation of Synthetic 152

21 Polymers. II. A Limited

 Microbial Conversion of 14C in

22 Polyethylene to 14CO2 by Some

 Soil Fungi

23 No. 15 Biodegradation of Synthetic 155

 Polymers. III. The Liberation

24 of 14CO2 by Molds Like Fusarium

 redolens from 14C Labeled

25 Pulverized High-Density

2

1 No. 16 Poly(b-hydroxybutyrate) 157

 Stereoisomers: A Model Study of

2 the Effects of Stereochemical

 and Morphological Variables on

3 Polymer Biological Degradability

 No. 17 A Respirometric Method to 163

4 Measure Mineralization of

 Polymeric Materials in a Matured

5 Compost Environment

 No. 18 Advances in Properties and 164

6 Biodegradability of

 Co-Continuous, Immicisible,

7 Biodegradable, Polymer Blends

 No. 19 Biodegradable Polymer Blends of 168

8 Poly(lactic acid) and

 Poly(ethylene glycol)

9 No. 20 Degradation Ranking of Plastics 170

 in a Landfill Environment

10 No. 21 Laboratory-Scale Composting Test 174

 Methods to Determine Polymer

11 Biodegradability: Model Studies

 on Cellulose Acetate

12 No. 22 Reactive Compatibilization of 176

 Biodegradable Blends of

13 Poly(lactic acid) and

 poly(e-caprolactone)

14 No. 23 Biodegradable Blends of 177

 Bacterial Polyesters with

15 Polyethylene and Polystyrene

 No. 24 The Effect of Hyperbranched 179

16 Polymers on Processing and

 Thermal Stability of

17 Biodegradable Polyesters

 No. 25 Biodegradation of 181

18 Natural/Syndiotactic

 Poly(3-hydroxybutrate) Blends

19 No. 26 Microwave-Assisted Solvent-Free 183

 or Aqueous-Based Synthesis of

20 Biodegradable Polymers

21

22

23

24

25

3

1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

2 In the Matter of: )

3 ECM BioFilms, Inc. ) Docket No. 9358

4 )

5 --------------------

6

7 Friday, June 27, 2014

8

9 Federal Trade Commission

10 Constitution Center

11 400 7th Street, S.W.

12 Washington, D.C. 20024

13

14 The above-entitled matter came on for

15 investigation hearing, pursuant to notice, at

16 9:00 a.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

1 APPEARANCES:

2

3 ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

4 Katherine Johnson, Esquire

5 Federal Trade Commission

6 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

7 M-8102B

8 Washington, D.C. 20580

9

10 ON BEHALF OF ECM BIOFILMS, INC.

11 Jonathan Emord, Esquire

12 Emord & Associates

13 11808 Wolf Run Lane

14 Clifton, Virginia 20124

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
2 (Pages 5 to 8)

5

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 ---------------------

3 STEPHEN McCARTHY, Ph.D.,

4 being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the

5 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified

6 as follows:

7 MR. EMORD: This is before the Federal

8 Trade Commission in the matter of ECM Biofilms,

9 Inc., Public Docket 9358. This is the deposition

10 of Dr. Stephen T. McCarthy. Shall we take the

11 appearances of counsel?

12 MS. JOHNSON: Katherine Johnson for

13 complaint counsel.

14 MR. EMORD: Jonathan Emord for ECM

15 Biofilms.

16 EXAMINATION BY MR. EMORD:

17 Q. Now, Professor McCarthy, have you ever

18 been deposed before?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. How many times have you been deposed?

21 A. I would say approximately ten.

22 Q. Ten times?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Have you ever been deposed in a

25 proceeding involving the Federal Trade Commission?

6

1 A. No.

2 Q. You understand then probably from your

3 experience as a deponent that you are required to

4 testify truthfully, and the understanding is that

5 truth is not only the avoidance of a false

6 statement, but also ensuring that you don't omit a

7 material statement that is material to your

8 answer. Do you understand that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, if at any point during this

11 deposition you wish to take a break, just indicate

12 to me and we'll do it. The only requirement that

13 I have for that is that if it's during the

14 pendency of a question, you answer the question

15 first before we take a break. But you should feel

16 free at any point in time, if you need to use the

17 restroom or replenish the water supply that you

18 have, or anything else, you can certainly do that.

19 Are you on any medication that could

20 affect your cognitive function?

21 A. No.

22 Q. And you have no physical disability that

23 might in any way affect your cognitive function?

24 A. No.

25 Q. So you do not have a physical disability

7

1 or mental disability that would affect your

2 ability to testify here today?

3 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Compound.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Have you ever testified as an expert

6 before?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And in how many proceedings have you

9 testified as an expert before?

10 A. I'd say about seven.

11 Q. In those proceedings, were you appearing

12 on behalf of specific corporations?

13 A. Do you mean was I representing some

14 corporations?

15 Q. Actually, whether counsel for one of the

16 parties happened to -- that called you happened to

17 represent a corporation?

18 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Vague.

19 Q. You can answer.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. We'll get into the names of those

22 corporations in just a second. When objections

23 are made in the course of a deposition, it's

24 routine. If an objection goes to privilege, you

25 may be instructed not to answer. I don't want you

8

1 to answer a question if your counsel objects on

2 the basis of privilege.

3 If she objects on other bases, under the

4 Federal Rules, you are required to answer, unless

5 she specifically instructs you otherwise, and we

6 might discuss that. So if she registers an

7 objection, you can continue to respond. Okay?

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. Now, can you name for me the corporations

10 that were parties to the case, upon whose behalf

11 you appeared?

12 A. I don't remember all of them.

13 Q. Can you tell me the ones you do remember?

14 A. One of them was EarthShell.

15 Q. EarthShell?

16 A. Yes. One of them was Lifetime. One of

17 them was Hasbro. One of them was Metabolix. One

18 of them was Biotech, I believe. One of them was

19 Hasbro. One of them was National Starch. One of

20 them was Evenflo. One of them was Display

21 Technologies. I think that's all I can remember

22 right now.

23 Q. Of the ones that you remember, which ones

24 are in the business of selling products that are

25 biodegradable?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
3 (Pages 9 to 12)

9

1 A. EarthShell, Metabolix, Biotech, National

2 Starch.

3 Q. Now, how many times did you appear as an

4 expert witness for Metabolix?

5 A. Twice.

6 Q. Do you remember the names of those cases?

7 A. The names of the --

8 Q. Parties.

9 A. Procter & Gamble.

10 Q. In both cases, it was Procter & Gamble?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You testified as an expert there. Did

13 you testify as to issues related to

14 biodegradability?

15 A. It was a biodegradable polymer, but the

16 matter was composition -- it was a patent

17 invalidity proceeding in Europe.

18 Q. And what patent did that involve?

19 A. It was a patent by Procter & Gamble.

20 Q. Have you produced the complaint, answer,

21 other material related to that proceeding to

22 complaint counsel?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Do you possess any of that material?

25 A. No.

10

1 Q. So you have no written material

2 whatsoever related to the Procter & Gamble suits

3 that you just mentioned?

4 A. No. I was asked to destroy it.

5 Q. Do you have an expert report that you

6 retained from those proceedings?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Do you remember what you testified about

9 in those proceedings?

10 A. Again, it was a claim that, my testimony

11 was that it was not novel.

12 Q. Did you testify as an expert on the issue

13 of biodegradability in the EarthShell proceeding?

14 A. That was a biodegradable polymer, and it

15 was a patent infringement case.

16 Q. Did it involve your patent?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Or one of your patents? Did you testify

19 as to biodegradability?

20 A. It involved a biodegradable polymer, but

21 the basis of the case was on the composition

22 matter patent infringement.

23 Q. But did you testify as to

24 biodegradability in the case?

25 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Vague.

11

1 A. I don't think so.

2 Q. You again testified as to novelty and

3 that sort of thing?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you have copies of those case

6 documents, complaint, answer?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Do you have a copy of your expert report

9 in that proceeding?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Were you asked in that proceeding as well

12 to destroy the documents?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Concerning the Biotech case, did that

15 deal with biodegradability?

16 A. It was a biodegradable polymer.

17 Q. Did you testify as to biodegradability in

18 that case?

19 A. I don't believe so.

20 Q. Did you produce an expert report in that

21 case?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you still possess the expert report?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Were you asked to destroy the report?

12

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you have any documents related to the

3 case?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Were you asked to destroy those

6 documents?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In the National Starch case, did you

9 testify concerning the biodegradability of a

10 polymer?

11 A. I don't believe so.

12 Q. What did you testify about in the

13 National Starch case?

14 A. In the National Starch case, it was a,

15 sort of a production damages lawsuit.

16 Q. Do you have any of the paperwork

17 associated with that case?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And you don't have your expert report?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And in this case as well, you were asked

22 to destroy them?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Were the same lawyers representing all of

25 these parties?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
4 (Pages 13 to 16)

13

1 A. No.

2 Q. All different law firms?

3 A. The Biotech and the EarthShell were the

4 same lawyers.

5 Q. Who were the lawyers who represented the

6 party that you testified on behalf of in those two

7 cases, EarthShell and Biotech?

8 A. Workman Nydegger.

9 Q. N-i-d-e-g-g-e-r?

10 A. I think there's a Y.

11 Q. N-Y-G?

12 A. N-Y-D.

13 MS. JOHNSON: Can we go off the record

14 for a second, so I can let my law clerk in?

15 MR. EMORD: Sure. Off the record.

16 (Off the record.)

17 BY MR. EMORD:

18 Q. So you said that Workman Nydegger

19 represented EarthShell and who else?

20 A. Biotech.

21 Q. And then for Metabolix, who represents

22 them?

23 A. I don't recall.

24 Q. You don't recall?

25 A. I don't recall. It was someone from

14

1 England.

2 Q. And then with regard to National Starch?

3 A. It was Dan Guadaloupe, I believe.

4 Q. Do you remember the firm?

5 A. I don't remember the firm. It was

6 something Harris. It was in New Jersey.

7 Q. And then Evenflo, did that involve issues

8 of biodegradation?

9 A. No.

10 Q. What was that about?

11 A. That involved a product liability case.

12 Q. Dealing with what kind of a product?

13 A. It was a child's car seat.

14 Q. And then the Display Technologies case,

15 did that deal with biodegradable polymers?

16 A. No.

17 Q. What was that about?

18 A. That was about a patent infringement.

19 Q. What product?

20 A. It was a molded carrier of soda to be

21 used for displaying in convenience stores.

22 Q. In any of these cases that we've

23 discussed, EarthShell, Lifetime, Hasbro,

24 Metabolix, Biotech, National Starch, Evenflo and

25 Display Technologies, do you possess the expert

15

1 reports that you produced in those proceedings?

2 A. For Display Technologies.

3 Q. That's the only one?

4 A. That is the only one.

5 Q. In all other instances, were you asked by

6 counsel to destroy the documents?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Including all of the case documents

9 related to the complaint, the answer, and any

10 other documents in the proceeding?

11 A. Except for the Display Technologies.

12 Q. Let's take a look at your CV and your

13 expert report. Your CV is attached to your expert

14 report. We're going to mark it for identification

15 as Respondent's Exhibit 1, and I'll give you a

16 copy.

17 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

18 Exhibit No. 1, expert report and attached CV,

19 marked.)

20 BY MR. EMORD:

21 Q. Keep it next to you, because we'll be

22 referring to it throughout the deposition. Now,

23 you're a professor of plastics engineering at the

24 University of Massachusetts Lowell, correct?

25 A. Yes.

16

1 Q. And you're a tenured professor, right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. When did you become tenured?

4 A. I believe it was 1987 or `88.

5 Q. Are you a biochemist?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Are you a polymer material chemist?

8 A. I have training in polymer chemistry.

9 Q. Would you consider yourself a polymer

10 material chemist?

11 A. I'm not sure what that means.

12 Q. Okay. But you have training in polymer

13 chemistry?

14 A. Polymer chemistry, yes.

15 Q. Academic training?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Explain it to me, if you will.

18 A. I have a -- during my Ph.D., I took

19 courses in polymer chemistry.

20 Q. Do you remember what those courses are,

21 by any chance?

22 A. Polymer synthesis.

23 Q. What university?

24 A. Case Western Reserve University.

25 Q. Was this for -- this you said was for

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
5 (Pages 17 to 20)

17

1 your Ph.D. Any other courses?

2 A. Yes. There was a course in polymer

3 characterization.

4 Q. Material --

5 A. No. Polymer characterization.

6 Q. Any others?

7 A. There was a course in polymer physics. I

8 also took two polymer courses for my master's

9 degree.

10 Q. What were those?

11 A. One was mechanical properties of

12 polymers. One was a polymer chemistry course.

13 Q. Any others?

14 A. Specifically in polymer chemistry?

15 Q. Correct.

16 A. In my undergrad, I took a course in

17 polymer chemistry.

18 Q. What university?

19 A. Southeastern Massachusetts University.

20 Q. Any other courses?

21 A. In my undergrad, I took a course in

22 textile chemistry.

23 Q. Any other courses?

24 A. Possibly.

25 Q. You can't remember at this point?

18

1 A. It's been a while.

2 Q. I appreciate it. It's hard to remember

3 all of these things over a long period of time.

4 Are you a microbiologist?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in the

7 types of microorganisms that exist in landfills?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in the

10 formation of microorganism colonies in landfills?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in the

13 types and kinds of biochemical reactions produced

14 by microorganisms in landfills?

15 A. I've done research in enzymatic

16 degradation.

17 Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in

18 enzymatic degradation?

19 A. I consider myself knowledgeable.

20 Q. But an expert?

21 A. Possibly.

22 Q. Now, the document that we've marked for

23 identification as Exhibit 1, which appears to be

24 your expert report, is that your expert report in

25 this proceeding? You can take a look and make

19

1 sure it's not missing pages.

2 A. Do you want me to go through this too?

3 Q. Just skim through it. Make sure it's

4 your list of publications. You've completed your

5 review of the document?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is it a true and correct and complete

8 copy of your expert report in this proceeding, to

9 the best of your knowledge?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, did you draft every sentence in

12 Exhibit 1?

13 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. You can answer.

14 A. The report was a collaborative effort

15 between myself and complaint counsel.

16 Q. Can you show me content that was not

17 drafted by you in the document? Can you go

18 through and help me see which content was not your

19 draftsmanship?

20 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Asked and

21 answered.

22 A. It was a collaborative effort that took

23 place over many drafts, and so I agree -- I've

24 reviewed it. I agree with the wording. And I

25 don't know which ones I didn't draft.

20

1 Q. So you don't -- even if you were to look

2 at sentence by sentence, you're telling me that

3 you could not tell whether it was content you

4 drafted that -- excuse me -- content you drafted

5 versus content that was drafted by someone else

6 that you reviewed? Can you distinguish those two

7 as we go through piece by piece or not?

8 A. I can say that I drafted a lot of this,

9 and that there were multiple revisions, and that I

10 agree with everything in here.

11 Q. Take, for example, footnote 1 in the

12 document, which is on page 5. Who drafted

13 footnote 1?

14 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

15 A. This would have been a collaborative

16 effort between myself and complaint counsel.

17 Q. Can you identify the content in footnote

18 1 that you drafted, to the best of your

19 recollection?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Now, I'm going to have the court reporter

22 excerpt the text of footnote 1 from page 14 --

23 excuse me -- from page 5 of the expert report, and

24 place it in the transcript at this point for

25 reference.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
6 (Pages 21 to 24)

21

1 "Complaint Counsel asked me to assume

2 that the unqualified marketing claim

3 'biodegradable' means that the entire treated

4 plastic will completely break down and return to

5 nature (i.e., decompose into elements found in

6 nature) within one year after customary disposal

7 (i.e., incinerator, landfill, or recycling). I

8 use this definition and the scientific definition

9 of biodegradable interchangeably in this Expert

10 Report, because there is no substantive difference

11 between the two that affects my analysis or my

12 opinions."

13 Before complaint counsel asked you to use

14 the definition of biodegradable -- first let me

15 ask you, did complaint counsel ask you to use the

16 definition of biodegradable that appears in

17 footnote 1?

18 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. You can answer

19 to the extent it doesn't get into our privileged

20 communications.

21 A. This was the definition that I used with

22 respect to this case.

23 Q. Let me understand that. You're saying

24 this is the definition in footnote 1 that you used

25 in this case. You did say in this case. You

22

1 don't use this in the outside world?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

3 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

4 A. This was a specific marketing claim.

5 Q. That's not my question. My question is

6 whether the definition of biodegradable that you

7 include in footnote 1 of your expert report is a

8 definition that you use only in this case, or that

9 you use commonly or elsewhere outside of the case?

10 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

11 Q. Do you know the distinction I'm drawing

12 here? Do you understand?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Have you used the definition of

15 biodegradable in footnote 1 anywhere else other

16 than in this expert report?

17 A. Yes, I could use it in other cases.

18 Q. I didn't ask you whether you could. I

19 asked you whether you have. Have you ever used

20 the definition of biodegradable in footnote 1 in

21 any other matter than this case, this report?

22 A. Any other legal case?

23 Q. No, any other matter, legal case or

24 publication, anywhere. I'm asking you anywhere,

25 other than in this case, can you cite for me proof

23

1 that you have used the definition of biodegradable

2 that is contained in this expert report at

3 footnote 1?

4 A. Perhaps.

5 Q. Perhaps. Okay, go ahead. Tell me where

6 else you used the definition.

7 A. It may have been used in one of my

8 papers.

9 Q. One of your papers?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What paper?

12 A. I'm just saying that -- of the

13 publications.

14 Q. Do you know whether you used it in

15 another paper?

16 A. It's possible.

17 Q. If I told you that I've read the papers

18 that are appended to your CV and your Exhibit 1,

19 and I did not see the definition contained in

20 footnote 1 replicated there anywhere, do you think

21 I'm mistaken?

22 A. Are you saying word for word the exact

23 definition?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Or just the one here?

24

1 Q. Let's start word for word first.

2 A. Word for word, it's possible you're not

3 mistaken.

4 Q. It's possible I'm not mistaken. And then

5 let's take it up with the one year, the one-year

6 limitation that exists in footnote 1, did you ever

7 put a one-year limitation on the definition of

8 biodegradation in any other instance in which you

9 define the term in any publications?

10 A. Possibly.

11 Q. If I told you I've read your publications

12 and I did not see a one-year limitation in

13 association with the definition of biodegradation,

14 would I be incorrect?

15 A. Possibly.

16 Q. You don't know?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. How about the limitation that exists

19 there phrased in the terminology completely break

20 down and return to nature, that is, decompose into

21 elements found in nature, did you ever use that

22 language or comparable language, complete

23 breakdown, in any other definition of the term

24 biodegradable that you've used in any context

25 other than this report?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
7 (Pages 25 to 28)

25

1 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

2 A. Again, possibly.

3 Q. Now, if I told you that I've read all of

4 your papers that are listed in your listing of

5 publications and I did not see a single instance

6 in which the term biodegradable or biodegradation

7 or biodegrade has been defined using language that

8 includes the caveat within one year after

9 customary disposal -- excuse me, uses the caveat

10 will completely break down and return to nature,

11 that is, decompose into elements found in nature,

12 within one year after customary disposal, that is,

13 incinerator, landfill or recycling, but I have not

14 seen that language in any instance in which you

15 have used the term biodegradation or biodegradable

16 or biodegrade in any of your publications, would I

17 be mistaken?

18 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

19 A. You asked me just about the completely

20 break down.

21 Q. Let's back up. We'll break it into

22 elements. We talked about one year. Now, let's

23 take the other part, will completely break down

24 and return to nature, that is, decompose into

25 elements found in nature.

26

1 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. What's the

2 question?

3 Q. Using that language, have you used that

4 very language in the definition of the term

5 biodegrade, biodegradation, biodegradable, in any

6 definition appearing in any publication other than

7 in this expert report?

8 A. And you're including all of the theses

9 and dissertations?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. I believe that similar language is in

12 there.

13 Q. But the exact language is not?

14 A. Possibly.

15 Q. If I told that you I've read the papers

16 that you have listed in your CV and that I did not

17 see in any of those papers the use of that

18 language, will completely break down and return to

19 nature, that is, decompose into elements found in

20 nature, would I be mistaken?

21 A. The exact language or similar language?

22 Q. Let's start with the exact language.

23 A. Possibly.

24 Q. Similar language?

25 A. Similar language, I would say probably

27

1 you're mistaken.

2 Q. We'll get into this a little more. With

3 regard to the last part of it, within -- after

4 customary disposal, that is, incinerator, landfill

5 or recycling, have you ever used that language in

6 the definition of biodegrade, biodegradable or

7 biodegradation, in any publication, other than in

8 this expert report?

9 A. Exact or similar?

10 Q. Exact.

11 A. Possibly.

12 Q. And if I told you that I've read all of

13 your publications, and I do not see that language

14 in any definition of the term, would I be

15 mistaken?

16 A. Possibly.

17 Q. Now, in this expert report at footnote 1,

18 the first sentence reads: Complaint counsel asked

19 me to assume that the unqualified marketing claim

20 "biodegradable" means, and so on. Is that a true

21 and correct statement?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And do you stand by the definition in

24 footnote 1?

25 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

28

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You would not today have any basis or

3 reason to change it in any way?

4 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

5 A. Not right now.

6 Q. Now, if we start with the assumption that

7 biodegradable means that the entire treated

8 plastic will completely break down and return to

9 nature, that is, decompose into elements found in

10 nature, within one year after customary disposal.

11 We'll start with that, just stated here. Is it

12 true that if only 95 percent of a treated plastic

13 breaks down and returns to nature, that plastic is

14 not biodegradable?

15 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

16 A. In what time frame?

17 Q. Let's say it happens within a year, but

18 it's only 95 percent.

19 A. So it could be that if it's say six

20 months at 95 percent, that --

21 Q. Let's say 364 days, and it's 95 percent,

22 does it satisfy your definition of complete --

23 excuse me -- of biodegradable in footnote 1?

24 A. That would not satisfy the definition.

25 Q. Let's say that it biodegraded to 95

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
8 (Pages 29 to 32)

29

1 percent on 364 days, but on 366 days it went to

2 100 percent, would that satisfy the definition in

3 footnote 1?

4 A. Possibly.

5 Q. Assuming that on day 365 it was only 95

6 percent still, but on day 366 it became 100

7 percent, would that satisfy the definition of

8 biodegradable in footnote 1?

9 A. That wouldn't satisfy the exact

10 definition.

11 Q. Now, can you cite for me today any

12 peer-reviewed journal article that takes the

13 position that if 100 percent of a treated plastic

14 breaks down and returns to nature after a year,

15 the treated plastic is not biodegradable?

16 A. Are you talking about a -- talking about

17 a marketing claim?

18 Q. No. We're talking about a peer-reviewed

19 journal. I'm asking if you are aware, can you

20 cite for me today, any peer-reviewed journal

21 article that takes the position that if 100

22 percent of a treated plastic breaks down and

23 returns to nature after a year, the treated

24 plastic is not biodegradable?

25 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

30

1 A. I know of limitations concerning

2 combustibility.

3 Q. That's not the question. My question is

4 whether you know and can cite for me today a

5 peer-reviewed journal article that takes the

6 position that if 100 percent of a treated plastic

7 breaks down and returns to nature after a year,

8 the treated plastic is not biodegradable?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. Is there any evidence in the

11 peer-reviewed journals that 100 percent of any

12 treated plastic, including plastics made with your

13 own patent '199, breaks down and returns to nature

14 100 percent?

15 A. What do you mean by my own patent?

16 Q. Your own patent, the '199 patent.

17 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Foundation.

18 Q. We're going to get into that in a little

19 bit. Let's exclude that. Let me rephrase the

20 question for you and make it simple.

21 Is there any evidence in the

22 peer-reviewed journals that 100 percent of any

23 treated plastic breaks down and returns to nature?

24 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

25 A. Any evidence that if 100 percent breaks

31

1 down and returns to nature?

2 Q. Correct.

3 A. Within one year?

4 Q. No. Ever. 100 percent. In the

5 peer-reviewed literature, can you cite me a

6 publication that stands for the proposition that

7 100 percent of any treated plastic breaks down and

8 returns to nature, 100 percent?

9 A. I know of tests that have shown that.

10 Q. Wasn't there always some residual that

11 doesn't break down?

12 A. I mean, there's biomass, and biomass is

13 found in nature.

14 Q. But isn't there some residual, some

15 residual, that doesn't break down completely --

16 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Asked and

17 answered.

18 Q. -- and return to nature?

19 A. Not for something like polylactic acid.

20 There would be publications concerning --

21 THE REPORTER: I didn't hear the

22 beginning of your answer.

23 A. I'm sorry. I don't remember the --

24 Q. You said polylactic acid could break down

25 100 percent with no residual, right?

32

1 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

2 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

3 Q. What form of plastic did you just mention

4 that you said could break down 100 percent and

5 return to nature?

6 A. Polylactic acid.

7 Q. Any other plastic that can break down 100

8 percent and return to nature?

9 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Vague as to

10 plastic.

11 A. I would say probably amylose.

12 Q. Any others?

13 A. Probably polydioxanone.

14 Q. How about PET?

15 A. I don't know of any publication that

16 would say PET would.

17 Q. Now, in footnote 1 you write, and I'll

18 quote from it, the last sentence, I use this

19 definition and the scientific definition of

20 biodegradable interchangeably in this expert

21 report, because there is no substantive difference

22 between the two that affects my analysis or my

23 opinions, right? That's what you wrote?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. And what is the scientific definition of

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
9 (Pages 33 to 36)

33

1 biodegradable?

2 A. With respect to this marketing claim?

3 Q. No. What is the scientific definition of

4 biodegradable that you use in your publications?

5 A. I'm using this one based on the marketing

6 claim.

7 Q. That's not my question. My question is:

8 What is the scientific definition of biodegradable

9 you use in your scientific publications?

10 A. It would be probably the breakdown of the

11 polymer chain by microorganisms.

12 Q. Is that it, full definition?

13 A. I probably use other parts.

14 Q. Did you use completely break down into --

15 completely break down and return to nature in your

16 definitions that you published?

17 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

18 A. Possibly.

19 Q. You don't remember?

20 A. I don't remember every word I wrote in

21 all of my publications at this time.

22 Q. We'll get to that. Let's take a look at

23 what we'll mark for identification as Exhibit 2,

24 which is one of those publications, a chapter in a

25 book called Biodegradable Polymers?

34

1 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

2 Exhibit No. 2, chapter 9 in Plastics and the

3 Environment, marked.)

4 MR. EMORD: Off the record.

5 (Off the record.)

6 BY MR. EMORD:

7 Q. We've placed before the witness a

8 document that we've marked as Respondent's Exhibit

9 2 from a book called Plastics and the Environment,

10 and it is a chapter 9 entitled Biodegradable

11 Polymers. It says the author, Stephen P.

12 McCarthy, Department of Plastics Engineering,

13 University of Massachusetts at Lowell. Is that

14 your article, sir?

15 A. Yes, I believe so.

16 Q. Have you ever written in a peer-reviewed

17 article or chapter in a book that biodegradable --

18 that the definition of biodegradable varies

19 greatly?

20 MS. JOHNSON: Are you referring to

21 something specific in here?

22 Q. Just generally now, starting out with a

23 general question. Did you ever write in an

24 article in a peer-reviewed publication or a book

25 that the definition of biodegradable varies

35

1 greatly?

2 A. Are you referring to this book?

3 Q. I'm asking you, the universe of all the

4 books and publications you've written, have you

5 ever stated that the definition of the term

6 biodegradable varies greatly?

7 A. Without the peer-reviewed? This one says

8 that, but this was not peer-reviewed.

9 Q. Did you write this?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And it says, does it not, in the first

12 sentence, the definition of biodegradable polymer

13 varies greatly among scientists, manufacturers,

14 and consumers, right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You wrote that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You wrote that in 2003?

19 A. This was published in 2003. I might have

20 written it earlier than that. I'm not sure.

21 Q. And then in that same first paragraph,

22 you give an ASTM definition for biodegradable,

23 right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And, as I see it here, there is no

36

1 reference to a one-year limit in that definition;

2 is that true?

3 A. That's true.

4 Q. And in this definition that you list here

5 from ASTM, there is no language in the definition

6 that says completely break down and return to

7 nature, that is, decompose into elements found in

8 nature, right?

9 A. It says complete mineralization.

10 Q. Now, the quoted language from the ASTM,

11 does that include the language complete

12 mineralization in this page?

13 A. I don't see it in this portion of the

14 definition.

15 Q. Now, do you know whether other scientists

16 share the view you wrote in Exhibit 2, that the

17 definition of biodegradable varies greatly among

18 scientists, manufacturers, and consumers?

19 A. You're saying, do I know of any other

20 scientists who share this?

21 Q. I'm sorry. I'll rephrase the question

22 for you. Do you know whether other scientists

23 share the view you wrote in Exhibit 2 here, that

24 the definition of biodegradable varies greatly

25 among scientists, manufacturers, and consumers?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
10 (Pages 37 to 40)

37

1 A. As of --

2 Q. Today.

3 A. As of today?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. Possibly.

6 Q. Let's go back a little bit to your CV.

7 Now, if you look at just page 4 of your report --

8 A. Of my report or my CV?

9 Q. Sorry. Let's look at your report first,

10 page 4 of your report, Exhibit 1. You list there

11 that you are the editor of the Journal of Polymers

12 and the Environment, right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. How long have you been the editor of The

15 Journal of Polymers and the Environment?

16 A. The journal started out with a different

17 name.

18 Q. What name was that?

19 A. I believe it was Journal of Polymer

20 Degradation.

21 Q. When was that?

22 A. I'm not sure exactly.

23 Q. Approximately when?

24 A. The name change?

25 Q. No. Let's back up. When you first

38

1 became the editor of The Journal of Polymer

2 Degradation.

3 A. Can I look at my CV?

4 Q. Sure.

5 A. 1991.

6 Q. Have you been the editor of The Journal

7 of Polymer Degradation or The Journal of Polymer

8 and the Environment consistently since 1991?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. To the present?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What do you do as editor?

13 A. Currently?

14 Q. Let's say since 2000.

15 A. So there is roughly 30, around 30

16 submissions of publications that are submitted

17 every week. And I review them and narrow it down

18 to the best ones, which are probably around five

19 or six. And then those are sent out to reviewers

20 to review under the peer-review system. And then

21 the reviewers' critiques come back, and it's

22 either accepted for publication, rejected for

23 publication, or sent back for modification.

24 Q. Who makes the determination of whether

25 it's accepted for publication?

39

1 A. It would be my decision, but it would be

2 based on the reviews.

3 Q. I understand. I'm going to show you an

4 article that we copied from the journal published

5 on June 29, 2011. We'll mark this as Exhibit 3.

6 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

7 Exhibit No. 3, Biodegradable Polymers - A Review

8 on Recent Trends and Emerging Perspectives,

9 marked.)

10 BY MR. EMORD:

11 Q. Do you recognize this article?

12 A. I recognize it as being an article in the

13 journal.

14 Q. This is the journal that you edit?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. You would have seen the manuscript of

17 this publication?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You would have approved it for

20 publication in the journal?

21 A. Again, based on the peer review.

22 Q. But it wouldn't appear in the journal

23 without your approval?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. If you'll turn to page 638, under the

40

1 heading definition of biodegradation in the

2 left-hand column. Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. I'm going to have the court reporter

5 excerpt from this page, under the title Definition

6 of Biodegradation, the first two -- excuse me --

7 the entire paragraph, the first entire paragraph

8 under the heading Definition of Biodegradation,

9 and place it at this point in the deposition

10 transcript.

11 "The various definitions of

12 biodegradation depend on the field of application

13 of the polymers (biomedical area or natural

14 environment). Many different definitions have

15 officially been adopted, depending on the

16 background of the defining standard organizations

17 and their particular interests. Van der Zee and

18 Seal (11, 12) review all of the definitions found

19 in different standards. Albertsson and Karlsson

20 (13) defined biodegradation as an event that takes

21 place through the action of enzymes and/or

22 chemical decomposition associated with living

23 organisms and their secretion products. It is

24 also necessary to consider abiotic reactions like

25 photodegradation, oxidation and hydrolysis, which

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
11 (Pages 41 to 44)

41

1 may alter the polymer before, during or instead of

2 biodegradation because of environmental factors.

3 So, strictly speaking, 'biodegradation of a

4 polymer' is defined as the deterioration of its

5 physical and chemical properties and a decrease of

6 its molecular mass down to the formation of CO2,

7 H2O, CH4, and other low molecular-weight products

8 under the influence of microorganisms in both

9 aerobic and anaerobic conditions aided by abiotic

10 chemical reactions like photodegradation,

11 oxidation and hydrolysis (14)."

12 Now, as editor of the journal, did you

13 ever tell the authors that you thought the section

14 entitled Definition of Biodegradation should be

15 changed in any way?

16 A. No, because I was not a reviewer.

17 Q. But you approved the article for

18 publication, I think you said?

19 A. Based on the reviews.

20 Q. Now, did you tell the authors that they

21 ought to alter the section entitled Definition of

22 Biodegradation to specify that the term required

23 complete breakdown and return to nature within one

24 year of customary disposal?

25 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

42

1 A. If any of the reviewers had changes that

2 they wanted made, I would have then relayed that

3 to the -- and in order for it to be accepted, I

4 would have relayed that back to the author. So

5 that could be construed as me asking the author to

6 make changes.

7 Q. But did you specifically ask either the

8 authors or any of the reviewers to include within

9 the definition of biodegradation the requirement

10 that there be a complete breakdown and return to

11 nature within one year of customary disposal?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Let's take look at another article of

14 yours that is entitled Biodegradability and

15 Miscibility of Blends Containing

16 Poly(Hydroxybutyrate-co-Hydroxyvalerate) in the

17 ANTEC 90 journal at 1439.

18 MR. EMORD: We'll mark this as Exhibit

19 Number 4.

20 BY MR. EMORD:

21 Q. We're going to skip that for the moment.

22 What is PET?

23 A. Do you mean what does the abbreviation

24 PET stand for with respect to a polymer?

25 Q. Right.

43

1 A. Polyethylene terephthalate.

2 Q. In your report, as I understand it, you

3 say that PET is not biodegradable, correct?

4 A. Do you want me to check?

5 MS. JOHNSON: Are you referring to

6 something specific?

7 Q. Do you consider PET biodegradable?

8 A. I do not consider PET to be biodegradable

9 in normal composting.

10 Q. Is there any additive that you know, made

11 by any company, that causes PET to become

12 biodegradable?

13 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. What do you

14 mean by biodegradable? What definition are you

15 using?

16 A. I don't think so.

17 Q. Now, how much have you been paid by the

18 FTC in this proceeding?

19 A. So far?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. $7500.

22 Q. And what is your financial arrangement

23 with the FTC?

24 A. It is $100 per hour, plus the deposition,

25 which is something higher.

44

1 Q. You're the director of the U Mass Lowell

2 Bioplastics Institute and Medical Plastic Research

3 Center, right?

4 A. Bioplastics and Medical Plastic Research

5 Center, yes.

6 Q. With your permission, so I don't have to

7 say that entire name and all of its parts every

8 time I'm referring to it, shorten that to

9 Bioplastics Research Center or Research Center.

10 Is that okay?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So that we're both on the same page, if I

13 use the term Bioplastics Research Center or

14 Research Center, I'm referring to the U Mass

15 Lowell Bioplastics Institute and Medical Plastics

16 Research Center, okay?

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Now, when was the Bioplastics Research

19 Center established?

20 A. You're talking the bioplastics and

21 medical plastics?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. Do you want me to go through the

24 history of --

25 Q. No.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
12 (Pages 45 to 48)

45

1 A. I would say two and a half years ago.

2 Q. 2011?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, you created it, right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Does the Research Center include members?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What companies are industry members?

9 A. Metabolix, Echo Verde -- let me back up.

10 There aren't really members.

11 Q. What are there?

12 A. There are companies that sponsor

13 research.

14 Q. So these are the companies that sponsor

15 research, Metabolix, Echo Verde. Who else?

16 A. MMM, Densified Solutions. Are you

17 talking about just the bioplastics and medical

18 plastics?

19 Q. Correct.

20 A. There might be some others.

21 Q. What's the annual operating budget of the

22 center?

23 A. I'm not sure exactly.

24 Q. That's all right. A close approximation.

25 A. About $70,000 a year. I mean, that's

46

1 total. That's what the university gets.

2 Q. I'm going to have you take a look at a

3 document from Mass Lowell.

4 MR. EMORD: We'll mark this as exhibit.

5 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

6 Exhibit No. 4, document entitled Center for

7 Biogradable Polymer Research at UML, marked.)

8 BY MR. EMORD:

9 Q. Now, do you recognize this document?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. To your knowledge, is it accurate in its

12 description of the Research Center?

13 A. No.

14 Q. It's not accurate. Where is it

15 inaccurate?

16 A. This is not the Research Center.

17 Q. This is another center, Biodegradable

18 Polymer Research Center is not the same as the

19 center we were just talking about?

20 A. Right. That's why I asked you if you

21 wanted me to go through the history.

22 Q. I appreciate that. This is a predecessor

23 to it?

24 A. This is a predecessor to it.

25 Q. Now the history. When was the

47

1 Biodegradable Polymer Research Center established?

2 A. I believe it was `93.

3 Q. 1993. Did you establish the center?

4 A. I established it with a colleague.

5 Q. Who is the colleague?

6 A. Richard Gross.

7 Q. He was your mentor?

8 A. Is that a question?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. No.

11 Q. You studied in collaboration with him?

12 A. No.

13 Q. He has a background in biochemistry,

14 right?

15 A. In chemistry.

16 Q. And he wrote articles in which you were

17 also the co-author, right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. He did research on polymers, right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you worked with him on that research

22 and published with him on that research. Were you

23 the more junior person in that association?

24 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

25 A. No.

48

1 Q. You were the senior person?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. When did he retire?

4 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. That assumes

5 facts not in evidence.

6 Q. Has he not retired? Is he still at

7 U Mass?

8 A. No, he's not at U Mass.

9 Q. But he's at another institution now?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What institution is that?

12 A. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

13 Q. In France?

14 A. In Troy, New York.

15 Q. How much was the annual budget of the

16 Biodegradable Polymer Research Center?

17 A. In what year?

18 Q. `93 to 2011?

19 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

20 Q. Annual operating budget.

21 A. It varied.

22 Q. Give me the range.

23 A. I would say it varied from $30,000 to

24 possibly maybe close to $200,000.

25 Q. A year?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
13 (Pages 49 to 52)

49

1 A. Per year.

2 Q. Is Exhibit 4 a complete and accurate

3 description of the Biodegradable Polymer Research

4 Center, do you think?

5 A. It looks like this was a description as

6 of 2008.

7 Q. And as of that year, is it accurate?

8 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

9 A. I believe so.

10 Q. Let's take a look at another one of

11 these. This one is an updated version. No. This

12 one is the preceding version. We'll find out.

13 We'll mark this as Exhibit 5.

14 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

15 Exhibit No. 5, document entitled Center for

16 Biogradable Polymer Research at UML, marked.)

17 BY MR. EMORD:

18 Q. Can you tell me what is the, if you know,

19 what is the year, this one, of this document? The

20 other one was 2008.

21 MS. JOHNSON: Is this an excerpt of

22 something? Where is the rest of the document?

23 MR. EMORD: He can tell us.

24 MS. JOHNSON: It's your exhibit.

25 MR. EMORD: This is all we have. I

50

1 don't -- I have these two documents. Whether

2 there are other documents related to it, I'm sure

3 there probably are.

4 MS. JOHNSON: Did you pull this off the

5 website?

6 MR. EMORD: It's in our discovery

7 materials. That's all I know.

8 MS. JOHNSON: There's no Bates number on

9 it.

10 MR. EMORD: Right.

11 A. I'm not sure what this is.

12 Q. You don't know what year it is?

13 A. I mean, there is an indication that it's

14 2007.

15 Q. Is this an accurate description of the

16 functioning and purpose of the center, that is,

17 Exhibit 5?

18 A. At that time?

19 Q. At that time, roughly 2007/2008.

20 A. I'm not sure.

21 Q. You say in 2011 the center changed its

22 name?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And is the purpose of the center since

25 2011 the same as it had been previously, or has it

51

1 changed?

2 A. In 2011, we expanded it to include

3 medical plastics.

4 Q. So prior to that time, it didn't include

5 medical plastics?

6 A. Not officially.

7 Q. Any other change of note in 2011 from the

8 prior functioning of the organization?

9 A. Yes. It was a new location.

10 Q. Previously, it was located where?

11 A. 333 Aiken Street.

12 Q. And now it's located?

13 A. 1001 Pawtucket.

14 Q. Did you expand the size of the facility?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Roughly the same size?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Smaller?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What is your salary as a professor at

21 U Mass?

22 A. Approximately $150,000.

23 Q. Do you have any other income related to

24 biodegradable plastics?

25 A. In terms of anything?

52

1 Q. Anything.

2 A. The royalty.

3 Q. Royalty income from?

4 A. From a patent that's owned by the

5 university.

6 Q. Now, you have been responsible for

7 bringing several research grants to U Mass Lowell,

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And as I understand it, it is the policy

11 of U Mass Lowell, when a professor brings in a

12 grant, to assign a portion of that grant money to

13 do the research. That's the vast majority of it?

14 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. What's the

15 foundation?

16 MR. EMORD: He can answer.

17 Q. The vast majority of it goes to the

18 Research Center or whatever, the fund for the

19 research. And then a portion goes to the

20 university. Do I have that right? Correct me if

21 I'm mistaken.

22 A. Let me maybe recharacterize the statement

23 so that it's more factual.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 A. So there is, the total amount of the

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
14 (Pages 53 to 56)

53

1 money is split between direct costs and indirect

2 costs. So there's an overhead rate of 54 percent

3 that's applied to the research monies on the

4 majority of grants.

5 Q. Now, the overhead rate, that goes to the

6 university?

7 A. The university.

8 Q. And the remainder of the 100 percent,

9 the --

10 MS. JOHNSON: 46.

11 Q. The 46 percent.

12 A. The remainder is spent on the research.

13 Q. Now, it goes into a research fund, right?

14 A. No.

15 Q. What account receives that 46 percent?

16 A. The project account.

17 Q. Who controls the project account?

18 A. The principal investigator or principal

19 investigators.

20 Q. And are you in control of that account

21 for research that you bring into the university?

22 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. What account?

23 Q. The project account you just mentioned.

24 A. So for projects in which I'm one the

25 principal investigators, I have some control over

54

1 that.

2 Q. Do you have signatory authority over the

3 account?

4 A. In some cases.

5 Q. Do you receive a salary out of funds that

6 go into that account?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Do you receive any personal financial

9 remuneration whatsoever from the funds that go

10 into that account?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Now, in connection with the research

13 money that you are able to land as grants from an

14 institution, does the university ever give you an

15 increase in salary based on its review of those

16 grants?

17 A. So there are two promotions where there

18 are raises. One is for associate professor and

19 one is for full professor. And there are three

20 areas that are important to achieve in order to

21 get that promotion. One is teaching, one is

22 service, and one is research. And in the research

23 part, that would be where the sponsored research

24 would be important.

25 Q. I see. So it's a factor taken into

55

1 account in determining salary?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

3 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

4 A. Not in determining salary. In

5 determining the promotion to associate or full

6 professor.

7 Q. I see. Now, once you become a full

8 professor, if you continue to get grant monies

9 brought into the university, does that in any way

10 affect the determination of whether to increase

11 your pay?

12 A. No.

13 Q. It has no effect whatsoever?

14 A. Up until like this last year, it didn't

15 really have an effect. It's not a good thing.

16 It's because the union was -- it's a faculty

17 union. Up to two years ago, I think there's .5

18 percent increase in salary. I'm just guessing.

19 I'm not sure exactly. But I think right now

20 there's .5 percent increase in salary that's

21 possible from merit. And merit, that would enter

22 into merit.

23 Q. Now, the university has a policy about

24 professors inventing something and getting a

25 patent for it, don't they?

56

1 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Vague.

2 A. They encourage it.

3 Q. They have a policy related to patents?

4 A. They have many policies related to

5 patents.

6 Q. If you invent something at the lab at the

7 university, and you wanted to secure a patent for

8 the invention, what would the university require?

9 A. If I wanted to secure a patent, it would

10 probably have to not be done in the lab, and it

11 would have to be something that's not related to

12 any of my research.

13 Q. But if you did discover something in the

14 lab, what would the university do? Would they

15 say -- under the policy that exists -- would they

16 say we'll get the patent, you can be co-owner of

17 the patent, or how does that relationship work?

18 A. If it was something in the lab related to

19 my research, I would not be allowed to get a

20 patent on it.

21 Q. The university would get the patent?

22 A. The university -- if there was a patent

23 to be issued, the university would own it. Or if

24 I did get a patent, they would probably take me to

25 court or something.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
15 (Pages 57 to 60)

57

1 Q. Let's take a look at Patent Number

2 5,833,199 (sic), which we'll mark as Exhibit 6.

3 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

4 Exhibit No. 6, Patent Number 5,883,199, marked.)

5 BY MR. EMORD:

6 Q. Do you recognize this patent?

7 A. Do you want me to go through the whole

8 thing?

9 Q. Go through each page and make sure it's a

10 true and correct copy of your patent.

11 A. The question is -- I forgot.

12 Q. Is this your patent?

13 A. No, it's not my patent.

14 Q. Whose patent is it?

15 A. The University of Massachusetts.

16 Q. You're listed as one of the inventors?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. The University of Massachusetts is listed

19 as the assignee on the patent?

20 A. The assignee?

21 Q. Who assigned the patent to the assignee?

22 A. The university.

23 Q. The university assigned the patent to

24 itself?

25 A. Again, the policy is if it's something

58

1 that's invented at the lab and it's related to

2 research, the university owns the rights to that.

3 Q. Is there an agreement between you and the

4 university concerning this patent?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is it in writing?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. EMORD: May we have a copy of the

9 agreement?

10 MS. JOHNSON: I think he's referring to

11 the general policy. I don't think there's a

12 written signed agreement between the parties.

13 Q. Is there a written signed agreement

14 between you and the university?

15 MS. JOHNSON: Not that I'm aware of.

16 A. You mean regarding the patent?

17 Q. Assignment of the patent, yes.

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. EMORD: Could we have that.

20 A. The university has it.

21 Q. And in addition, there are written

22 policies that the university has that pertain to

23 patents such as this?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And do you have access to those policies?

59

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. EMORD: May we have copies of those

3 written policies?

4 MS. JOHNSON: Sure.

5 Q. What are the terms of the assignment

6 agreement, as best you can remember, between you

7 and the university?

8 A. That they have exclusive rights to it, to

9 do whatever they want.

10 Q. Now, you receive royalties under the

11 patent, right?

12 A. I receive a portion of the royalties.

13 Q. So the royalties are assigned to the

14 university?

15 A. The royalties are paid to the university.

16 Q. And the university pays you a portion of

17 the royalties?

18 A. The university pays a portion of the

19 royalties to me.

20 Q. Is there a percentage breakdown? What

21 percentage royalty, do you know, does the

22 university get?

23 A. The university gets 70 percent of the

24 royalties, and 30 percent is split between the

25 inventors. And that is only on the profit. So

60

1 there's a long time where you're paying back the

2 lawyer's fees, the prosecution, the maintenance

3 fees, before you see a penny.

4 Q. I see. And the three people who split

5 the 30 percent are the inventors listed in the

6 patent?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. And they each receive what, 10 percent?

9 A. About that.

10 Q. How much money did you receive, let's

11 say, in 2011, from your patent royalties? Let's

12 make it a little easier, 2013. Closer in time.

13 A. Altogether it's been about $28,000.

14 Q. And in two-thousand --

15 A. No, for all time.

16 Q. All time. Okay. So approximately how

17 much do you get a year, the range?

18 A. It varies. One year, I didn't get any,

19 because it was a challenge and lawyers got

20 involved. Nothing against lawyers. I think I got

21 in the range of 4 to $5,000 this year.

22 Q. How much has Metabolix given to U Mass

23 Lowell in grants for sponsored research that you

24 did? Is the name Metabolix?

25 A. Yes, Metabolix.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
16 (Pages 61 to 64)

61

1 Q. What did I say? As in metabolic

2 function.

3 A. Yes. That's exactly why they chose the

4 name.

5 Q. Approximately how much money has

6 Metabolix given to the center?

7 A. I'd say approximately 1.7 million

8 dollars.

9 Q. And are they committed --

10 A. I mean, that's in sponsored research.

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. Okay.

13 Q. Is there another form of support they

14 give?

15 A. Royalties.

16 Q. And any other form?

17 A. There was a -- there was also a grant

18 that was written whereby they paid the university

19 for equipment that was purchased by the

20 university. So it was sort of a repayment for

21 equipment that the university purchased.

22 Q. Are you paid as a consultant by

23 Metabolix?

24 A. I was paid for the expert witness

25 testimony.

62

1 Q. How much were you paid?

2 A. For the two cases, approximately $5,000.

3 Q. For both cases or independently?

4 A. Both cases.

5 Q. And are you paid in any other way by

6 Metabolix?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Are you paid by any other company

9 personally?

10 A. Well, I'm compensated for the expert

11 witness.

12 Q. Yes. But as a consultant to any other

13 company, are you paid?

14 A. I don't think so.

15 Q. With Metabolix, are they going to

16 continue to supply research grants to the center?

17 A. Honestly, I don't think so.

18 Q. Do you know today?

19 A. I don't know today.

20 Q. How many years have they supplied

21 research grants to the center?

22 A. I don't know specifically, but I would

23 estimate it to be over 20 years.

24 Q. And have they given funding annually over

25 that 20 years?

63

1 A. There may have been some years when they

2 didn't fund anything.

3 Q. When you mentioned the 1.7 million,

4 that's the total over that 20-year period?

5 A. Over the 20 years, yes.

6 Q. Now, this patent that we've marked for

7 identification as Exhibit 6, is Metabolix the

8 exclusive license holder?

9 A. Yes. They are the exclusive licensee

10 with the option to sublicense.

11 Q. Have they sublicensed?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. To which parties?

14 A. The ones I know about are the ASF,

15 NatureWorks. Those are the ones that I definitely

16 know about. I know they were talking to

17 Georgia-Pacific, and to the Dixie people.

18 Q. Solo Cup?

19 A. If it's Solo.

20 Q. Maybe it's Dixie Cup.

21 A. International Paper.

22 Q. Are there biodegradable products on the

23 market made under the '199 patent, Exhibit 6?

24 A. I believe so.

25 Q. What products are on the market?

64

1 A. I don't know specifically.

2 Q. Do you have a general idea?

3 A. I believe it's mainly compostable --

4 plastic compost bags.

5 Q. Any other products?

6 A. I don't know. That's all Metabolix.

7 Q. Do you know whether those products are --

8 have labels or labeling associated with them that

9 identifies them as compostable or biodegradable?

10 A. I do not.

11 Q. You've never seen the finished product?

12 A. No.

13 Q. And Metabolix has never supplied you with

14 samples of finished product?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Have you ever seen advertising by

17 Metabolix related to your patent?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Or products that are made under your

20 patent?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Now, customers in the market for

23 biodegradable plastics, compostable products, have

24 a lot of choices out there?

25 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Lacks

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
17 (Pages 65 to 68)

65

1 foundation.

2 Q. Do you know?

3 A. They have -- I mean, there are more than

4 a couple choices. It's not a huge amount.

5 Q. So you're not saying there's a monopoly

6 associated with your '199 patent, it's a

7 competitive marketplace, right?

8 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

9 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

10 Q. To your knowledge.

11 A. I mean, the '199 patent is primarily

12 based on NatureWorks' product. And so if -- it

13 would be a monopoly -- I mean, there could be

14 other people who may produce polylactic acid, but

15 they're minor compared to NatureWorks.

16 Q. But that particular product is in

17 competition with other compostable and

18 biodegradable products in the market, right?

19 A. Sure.

20 Q. So you wouldn't have to buy plastic bags

21 that were compostable from NatureWorks, you could

22 go to another company that uses another invention?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you could get biodegradable plastic

25 bags, you could get compostable plastic bags, you

66

1 could get recyclable plastic bags, you have quite

2 an array of products to choose from?

3 MS. JOHNSON: You mean products that are

4 being marketed biogradable/compostable, not that

5 they are in fact biodegradable/compostable?

6 Q. That are marketed as biodegradable,

7 compostable, recyclable, there's quite an array

8 that you can choose from, right, if you're a

9 manufacturer interested in making those products

10 available?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In other words, it's a competitive

13 marketplace?

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. EMORD: Let's go off the record.

16 (Off the record.)

17 BY MR. EMORD:

18 Q. Now, have you seen any complaint or -- by

19 complaint, I'm using that term broadly, not just a

20 legal complaint in a court. I'm using the term

21 really as a letter or an objecting document. Have

22 you ever seen such a document before this case was

23 filed that related to ECM Biofilms?

24 A. Before this case was filed, no.

25 Q. For example, you did not see an e-mail to

67

1 Janice Frankel, an FTC attorney, from Brian Igoe?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Lacks

3 foundation.

4 Q. Do you know Brian Igoe?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is he with Metabolix?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Is he a lawyer?

9 A. He was with Mirel, when they first spun

10 out Mirel, for a short time.

11 Q. When they first what?

12 A. When Metabolix first spun out Mirel.

13 Q. Before that, was he with Metabolix?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Are you familiar with or have you ever

16 seen an e-mail to Janice Frankel from Brian Igoe

17 complaining about ECM's claims and urging FTC to

18 take action against ECM?

19 A. No, I don't believe so.

20 Q. Have you ever seen any other document,

21 for example, any communication from Metabolix to

22 the Federal Trade Commission concerning ECM?

23 A. I've seen the documents that were

24 provided to me by complaint counsel. So I don't

25 believe anything was from Metabolix.

68

1 Q. Have you ever seen a document complaining

2 about ECM Biofilms or its claims from Metabolix to

3 the Federal Trade Commission?

4 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Asked and

5 answered.

6 A. Again, if it was in the documents

7 supplied to me by complaint counsel.

8 Q. Do you have any specific recollection of

9 a document from Metabolix to the FTC complaining

10 about ECM BioFilms?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Do you know that Metabolix filed a

13 complaint with the FTC about ECM BioFilms?

14 A. No.

15 Q. You haven't had any discussion with

16 Metabolix about the filing of such a complaint?

17 A. No.

18 Q. They didn't ask you to review any content

19 of the complaint or consult with you at all

20 concerning the complaint?

21 A. No.

22 Q. What is Solutia?

23 A. I believe it's a spin-out from Monsanto.

24 Q. And has Solutia -- forgive me if I'm

25 mispronouncing it -- has Solutia given grants to

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
18 (Pages 69 to 72)

69

1 your center?

2 A. I'm not sure. Under the original

3 incarnation of the center, Monsanto was a member

4 of the center. They might have changed. I think

5 the portion -- I don't think Solutia ever gave

6 anything to the center. They donated a patent to

7 the university.

8 Q. Now, in your '199 patent --

9 A. You mean the university's?

10 Q. Yes. When I use that term, we'll

11 understand, however I refer to Exhibit 6, that

12 actually it is held by the university.

13 Now, let me back up just a little bit

14 here. Have you ever informed any of the parties

15 that give grants to your center that you don't

16 consider plastics biodegradable unless they

17 completely break down and return to nature?

18 A. I don't believe so.

19 Q. Have you ever told them that you don't

20 consider plastics biodegradable unless they do

21 that, completely break down and return to nature

22 within one year after customary disposal?

23 A. I don't believe so.

24 Q. Have you ever informed any of the

25 corporate funders for the center that additives to

70

1 plastics won't cause biodegradation?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Vague.

3 Plastics?

4 A. So we did a lot of work on additives, and

5 typically we wanted them to be biodegradable to

6 maintain the biodegradability of the total system.

7 Q. And in each of those instances, did you

8 establish with proof that the additive caused the

9 plastics to completely break down and return to

10 nature, that is, decompose into elements found in

11 nature, within one year after customary disposal?

12 A. I don't believe so.

13 Q. Let's take a look at paragraphs 17 and 37

14 of your expert report. Paragraph 17 is on page 7.

15 Go ahead and read 17 and 37, if you will, first,

16 17 and 37 to yourself.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Now, is it the case that if we take a

19 look at 17 and 37, it's your position that the

20 additive in the ECM product is no more susceptible

21 to a microbial -- excuse me, the plastic is no

22 more susceptible, conventional plastic, no more

23 susceptible to microbial attack after it's blended

24 with the ECM additive than before?

25 A. As long as it's added to a

71

1 nonbiodegradable polymer.

2 Q. So if it's a nonbiodegradable polymer

3 under what you've identified in the report and the

4 additive is added to it, it's no more

5 biodegradable after it's been added than it is

6 before; that's your opinion?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, can I be -- is this an accurate

9 statement, that conventional plastics are not

10 biodegradable?

11 A. That would be an accurate statement.

12 Q. What are conventional plastics?

13 A. Well, the majority of plastics,

14 polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, Teflon, PET,

15 Azdel.

16 Q. And for all of those, is it your position

17 that they're no more -- that they are not

18 susceptible, any more susceptible to microbial

19 attack after the ECM additive is added to them

20 than before?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Is it further your position that there is

23 no additive that you know of that could transform

24 a conventional plastic into a biodegradable

25 plastic?

72

1 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

2 Mischaracterizes his testimony. Assumes facts not

3 in evidence.

4 A. One that degrades completely in one year?

5 Q. Right.

6 A. I don't know of one.

7 Q. Let's take a look at the patent again,

8 Exhibit 6. As I understand the invention, and you

9 can help me understand it better, or correct my

10 misunderstanding, you start with polylactic acid,

11 PLA, and you blend it with any other polyester,

12 and the result is a biodegradable polymer; is that

13 correct?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Tell me where I have that mistaken.

16 A. Do you want me to explain to you what the

17 patent is?

18 Q. Sure.

19 A. The patent is a polylactic acid-based

20 polymer or copolymer, and the polyester is an

21 aliphatic diacid. So the first one is polylactic

22 acid, and the second one is -- a number of them,

23 could be C2 to C20 diacid with two more different

24 aliphatic diacids. The group --

25 Q. I might draw your attention to paragraph

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
19 (Pages 73 to 76)

73

1 12 of the patent, under other embodiments, that

2 might help.

3 A. Column 12?

4 Q. Yes. Under other embodiments. You see

5 there are a listing that proceeds from 1 through

6 10?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Actually proceeding onto the next page to

9 25. Does that give an accurate summation of the

10 claims --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- and of the blends?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So that would be a complete and accurate

15 summation of the blends?

16 A. This would be the -- what is claimed in

17 the invention.

18 Q. In particular, if you look at column 6,

19 lines 9 to 12. There it is stated, an example of

20 an aromatic polyester that can be used (in up to

21 50 percent by weight) in the copolyester is

22 polyethylene terephthalate. Other aromatic

23 polyesters can be used.

24 That polyethylene terephthalate, that's

25 PET, right?

74

1 A. It would be co-PET.

2 Q. Does it say that there?

3 A. It's a copolyester.

4 Q. Yes, copolyester is biodegradable and

5 imparts --

6 A. So it would be something like

7 polyethylene butyrate co-polyethylene

8 terephthalate.

9 Q. As I understand it, the protocol that

10 you've used -- let me back up just a little bit.

11 The protocol that you used here, that is described

12 in the patent to establish the biodegradability of

13 the blend, blends, five blends, is your own

14 testing methodology that you developed at U Mass

15 Lowell, right?

16 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

17 Q. It was your own testing methodology that

18 you developed?

19 A. It was developed within the center, yes.

20 Q. And as I understand it, under column 10

21 of the patent, you have a description of that

22 testing methodology, is that correct, example 3?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And that testing methodology is described

25 as UML-7645, right?

75

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And the results of your testing are shown

3 at figure 11; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. As I have read through this, I don't see

6 any proof of biodegradation being supplied through

7 use of 14C radiological testing; is that correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Also, I do not see any representation in

10 the patent that you established that the product,

11 the blends, would completely break down and return

12 to nature, that is, decompose into elements found

13 in nature within one year after customary

14 disposal; is that right?

15 A. This was not intended to -- yes, that's

16 right.

17 Q. So your claim for this biodegradable

18 plastic in the patent doesn't depend on proof of

19 satisfaction of the definition of biodegradation

20 or biodegrade in footnote 1 of your expert report;

21 is that right?

22 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

23 A. So one of these is polylactic acid, and I

24 think I responded earlier to say that polylactic

25 acid I believe would completely degrade in one

76

1 year in the correct environment.

2 Q. One of them is, but not all of them?

3 A. The Bionolle goes to 100 percent within

4 50 days.

5 Q. Right, but all five of the ones that are

6 listed under figure 11 you have established would

7 biodegrade within one year completely?

8 A. I believe they would.

9 Q. You believe so. But did you prove that?

10 Did you test them to establish that?

11 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

12 A. If the Bionolle goes by itself and the

13 PLA goes, then any blend would go.

14 Q. But my question is more specific. Did

15 you test your product to establish within a year

16 that it would completely biodegrade?

17 A. No.

18 Q. You're extrapolating then from the 50

19 days in the study to the conclusion that they will

20 eventually completely biodegrade; is that correct?

21 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

22 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

23 A. No. I'm using the pure Bionolle to

24 establish that that goes to a hundred percent.

25 Q. The pure Bionolle. But as far as the

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
20 (Pages 77 to 80)

77

1 remaining blends are concerned -- let me back up a

2 little bit. There are a total of five blends,

3 right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. For those five blends, you did not

6 perform a test to determine if they would

7 completely biodegrade within a year, right?

8 MS. JOHNSON: Objection, relevance.

9 A. I did not.

10 Q. If you look at Claim 1 of the patent, you

11 can read along with me and correct me if I'm

12 wrong, a biodegradable blend comprising of a first

13 polylactic acid-based polymer or copolymer, and a

14 second polymer consisting essentially of one or

15 more polyesters, wherein said first and second

16 polymers are present in a ratio of 9 to 1 to 1 to

17 9, right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So your claim is directed at a

20 biodegradable blend of polylactic acid polymer or

21 copolymer with one or more polyesters, right?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. Now, you don't specify in the patent a

24 limit on the kind of polyesters that can be used,

25 as best I can tell. So any polyester under the

78

1 patent could be used, right?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

3 A. There are patents that are listed -- I

4 mean blends that are listed.

5 Q. The patent itself does not restrict

6 itself to the listed polyesters, right? It

7 doesn't restrict itself to biodegradable

8 polyesters, right?

9 A. I think -- I'm pretty sure that if you

10 said biodegradable blend and you then blended

11 polylactic acid with say PET and the blend was not

12 biodegradable, then that probably would not be

13 covered by this patent.

14 Q. Now, when you look at column 11 of the

15 patent, and look under that paragraph that begins,

16 the soil degradation testing of the two polymers;

17 do you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. As I understand it, the PLA degraded by

20 about 14 percent after 45 days; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, if you look at figure 11, there you

23 say that the polylactic acid biodegrades in soil

24 but just not quickly, right? Let's see, where did

25 it say that? If you see a reference to that part,

79

1 holler, and we'll cut to the question.

2 If we go back to where we were at that

3 paragraph, that probably will suffice. So what

4 you're doing here, correct me if I'm wrong, is

5 based on the 14 percent after 45 days, you're

6 extrapolating to say that the thing is

7 biodegradable, right, from the 14 percent after

8 the 45 days?

9 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

10 A. No. You really shouldn't extrapolate.

11 Q. You shouldn't. But, in this case, the

12 only testing that is supplied by the patent is

13 this test that you have identified in the patent

14 by the code -- I can't remember the number

15 offhand. But the test you used for the patent,

16 which is revealed in figure 11, is for a period of

17 45 days, right?

18 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

19 Q. You didn't use a year-long test?

20 A. In the patent specification, we relied on

21 the knowledge that polylactic acid is

22 biodegradable within a year.

23 Q. Right. But all of these blends, the five

24 blends we're talking about, and the description

25 given of the universe of blends that you're

80

1 claiming under the patent, you didn't test all of

2 those. You tested the five, right?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. And you extrapolate from the five to all

5 of those, all those that you claim?

6 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

7 A. No.

8 Q. To say they're biodegradable?

9 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

10 A. No.

11 Q. So in other words, the patent is in error

12 when it lists as claims, under other embodiments

13 in paragraph 12, all of those different blends

14 that are in excess of the five blends that you

15 tested?

16 A. So you're saying there was an

17 extrapolation in terms of composition of matter,

18 not in terms of biodegradation rate.

19 Q. All right, let's start with that. There

20 was an extrapolation with regard to composition of

21 matter.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you used the term, in reference to

24 this patent, biodegradable?

25 A. Yes.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
21 (Pages 81 to 84)

81

1 Q. But the only testing you did, underlying

2 this patent, is the testing that is described in

3 figure 11 and in the patent?

4 A. No.

5 Q. You used testing to establish

6 biodegradation for this patent other than what is

7 described in the patent?

8 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

9 A. You said any other testing.

10 Q. Is the testing, UML-7645, the testing you

11 performed to support this patent?

12 A. We did that, plus we did other testing.

13 Q. In the patent you list UML-7645?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. And that test, UML-7645, was that test

16 for a year?

17 A. No.

18 Q. It was for 45 days?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the patent depends in figure 11 upon

21 that testing, the 45-day testing?

22 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

23 A. I don't think the patent depends on that.

24 I don't think the -- I think the patent would

25 still be as strong without that figure, because

82

1 the main testing for the strength of the patent

2 was the tensile testing.

3 Q. Tensile refers to strength?

4 A. Strength would be one characterization.

5 The --

6 Q. Malleability? You explain it to me,

7 Doctor.

8 A. The toughness is what it really gets at.

9 So the toughness is the area under the curve. You

10 could have a very strong polymer that breaks at a

11 low elongation, which would have some

12 applications. However, there's a need for a

13 polymer to yield and not break and to deform by a

14 shear deformation, which is actually ideal for

15 garbage bags, because people tend to put in more

16 garbage than they should.

17 Q. Now, if you look at page 15 of your

18 expert report, if we go down to the bottom, F,

19 test duration. There you say: The study must

20 last long enough for the sample to reach at least

21 60 percent biodegradation. Right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. If we go back to your '199 patent, in

24 column 11, lines 9 to 19, figure 11, it says in

25 the second full paragraph that begins, the soil

83

1 degradation testing. There you say: After

2 degradation for 45 days, Bionolle#3000 degraded

3 almost 100 percent. You didn't say 100 percent.

4 But you said almost 100 percent. While polylactic

5 acid degraded only about 14 percent by loss in

6 weight. For blends with 70 and 50 percent

7 Bionolle#3000, the degradation rate was relatively

8 fast. After 45 days, the A30B70, A50B50 and

9 A70B30 blends degraded about 77 percent, 65

10 percent, and 25 percent respectively by loss in

11 weight. Figure 11 shows the polylactic acid

12 biodegrades in soil, but just not quickly. And

13 the addition of the second aliphatic polymer such

14 as Bionolle#3000 increases the biodegradation

15 rate.

16 There you're saying the PLA biodegrades

17 in soil under the test, based on a finding that it

18 degraded by only 14 percent after 45 days, right?

19 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

20 A. When this patent was filed, we knew that

21 polylactic acid biodegraded.

22 Q. I understand. But in this patent, that's

23 what you're saying, 14 percent after 45 days,

24 right?

25 A. We're saying the 14 percent is the rate

84

1 after 45 days. So it's not as fast as the

2 Bionolle.

3 Q. If you look at page 16 of your report,

4 under proper controls. As I understand this,

5 there you're saying that a polymer biodegradation

6 test is invalid unless you use a negative control.

7 Is that right, or am I misunderstanding what

8 you're saying?

9 A. So for the purposes of the patent --

10 Q. No. I'm asking about the report now. In

11 the report, under G, proper controls, there you're

12 saying, are you not, that the absence of a

13 negative control makes the biodegradation test

14 invalid?

15 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

16 Q. Is that what you're saying, or are you

17 not saying that?

18 A. What I'm saying there is to prove that a

19 plastic is biodegradable, a test to prove it, then

20 you would need a negative control.

21 Q. When I look at the '199 patent, Exhibit

22 6, I don't see any negative control listed.

23 A. Well, our negative control was the PLA,

24 and our positive control was the Bionolle.

25 Because those weren't covered by our patent. So

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
22 (Pages 85 to 88)

85

1 the negative was a PLA, the positive was Bionolle,

2 and we're looking at the mixture of those two,

3 which were covered by the patent.

4 Q. I hear you. But in the patent itself --

5 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Let him finish

6 answering the question.

7 Q. Do you have anything more to add?

8 A. No.

9 Q. But as I read that patent, I find no

10 reference in that patent to a negative control.

11 Is the language negative control in the patent at

12 all?

13 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. He already

14 answered your question.

15 Q. You can answer. My question is: In the

16 patent itself, do you specify anywhere in there by

17 name a negative control?

18 A. I don't believe there's a negative

19 control mentioned in the patent.

20 Q. Now, if you look at paragraph 55 of your

21 expert report. As I understand 55, and correct me

22 if I'm wrong, you're stating that extrapolation

23 from a short test to the conclusion a polymer is

24 biodegradable in the environment is improper; is

25 that right?

86

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And in particular, the reason you give

3 is, for the prohibition on extrapolation, is that

4 there's no evidence that biodegradation is a

5 linear process, and in fact the rate of

6 biodegradation is likely to slow because of the

7 recalcitrants, right?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Let's take a look at the '199 patent, in

10 that same column we've been looking at, which is

11 number 11, and the 45 days. Now, as I understand

12 it, the only test report that is given in the

13 patent is the one related to the test we

14 discussed, the UML -- help me now -- 7456. That

15 was the only test that you performed, that is

16 reported upon in the patent, right?

17 A. No.

18 Q. For the purpose of establishing that

19 biodegradation in figure 11?

20 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

21 A. No.

22 Q. You used another test?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What was the other test?

25 A. 7645.

87

1 Q. That's it. Thank you. That's the one.

2 My numbers were wrong. Thank you. So that was

3 the test, UML-7645, that was the test that you

4 used in the patent, right?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. And that was a 45-day test?

7 A. I really don't know whether -- we might

8 have gone further than 45 days. And maybe at the

9 time of the patent we only had the 45-day data.

10 Q. At the time of the patent you only had

11 the 45-day data. You might have gone further.

12 How much further?

13 A. I don't know. I'd have to look.

14 Q. Was it a year?

15 A. It could have been. I don't know.

16 Q. Do you have documentation to establish

17 the amount of time that you tested?

18 A. Possibly.

19 MR. EMORD: If he has any documentation

20 showing the length of that test, may we have it?

21 MS. JOHNSON: We'll talk about it after

22 this.

23 MR. EMORD: And may we have all the

24 empirical data underlying UML-7645?

25 MS. JOHNSON: We can talk about all of

88

1 these clean-up items after this deposition.

2 MR. EMORD: I just want to make it known

3 on record that we're requesting all of the

4 empirical data underlying UML-7645.

5 BY MR. EMORD:

6 Q. Now, I didn't see in here, in the patent,

7 Exhibit 6, I don't see in there any reporting of

8 testing being done on the combination of the PLA

9 and the PET?

10 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

11 A. You mean the PET copolymer?

12 Q. Yes. And it's not listed in figure 11,

13 and I can't see it anywhere else in the patent.

14 Is it in there?

15 A. The test is not in here. The PET

16 copolymer is not in here. I know that it works.

17 Q. I understand. Now, in the '199 patent,

18 you did not use ASTM D644 as the testing

19 methodology, right?

20 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

21 A. Which one?

22 Q. ASTM D6400?

23 A. No.

24 Q. You used your own protocol which we

25 discussed, UML-7645?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
23 (Pages 89 to 92)

89

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. In footnote 11 of your report, what do

3 you say there? Let's take a look at footnote 11.

4 If you look at the last sentence of footnote 11,

5 and I'll have the footnote 11, at this point in

6 the deposition transcript, I would like footnote

7 11 from his expert report which was marked as

8 Exhibit 1 excerpted and placed in the transcript

9 right at this point.

10 "Each test protocol is conducted

11 inter-laboratory or intra-laboratory in order to

12 obtain the precision and bias of the test. If the

13 inter-laboratory tests obtain similar precision

14 and bias results under the test method, conducted

15 for the same duration, the test method is

16 considered validated for those factors. Tests

17 conducted outside of these validated parameters

18 cannot be considered reliable."

19 In that footnote 11 in the last sentence,

20 what does it say?

21 A. Do you want me to read it?

22 Q. Sure.

23 A. The tests conducted outside of these

24 validated parameters cannot be considered

25 reliable.

90

1 Q. And the tests that you're referring to

2 are those that are contained in the paragraph 49,

3 is that right, ASTM D5210, ASTM D5511 and ASTM

4 D5526; is that right?

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. Let's take a look at paragraph 60 of your

7 report at page 24. There you state, and correct

8 me if I'm wrong, that absent an approved ASTM

9 specification, 14C radiological testing should be

10 used, right?

11 A. Can you say that again?

12 Q. If you look at paragraph 60, absent --

13 your position is absent an approved ASTM

14 specification, it's your opinion that 14C

15 radiological testing should be used, right?

16 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. For what?

17 A. So what I'm referring to is, if you have

18 an additive that you add to a plastic that has not

19 been proven to be biodegradable.

20 Q. Okay. That's what I need to hear, a full

21 explanation. Now, I think we previously

22 established that regardless, in your '199 patent,

23 you didn't use 14C radiological testing, right?

24 A. No.

25 Q. In paragraph 24 of your report, you

91

1 explain that aerobic biodegradation -- let's look

2 at 24. You explain that aerobic biodegradation

3 leads to CO2 formation, right?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. Now, are you able to write out for me on

6 a sheet of paper the chemical structures and the

7 transformation of those structures that leads to

8 methane CH4 and CO2 and specifically how the

9 carbon in the polymer is converted to CH4 and CO2?

10 Can you write that out for me?

11 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. What polymer?

12 Q. It's described in paragraph 24.

13 MS. JOHNSON: There's no polymer

14 described in paragraph 24.

15 Q. Can you write out what takes place in

16 paragraph 24 for me using chemical structures?

17 A. You mean in terms of the respiration of

18 microorganisms?

19 Q. The chemical structures that lead, the

20 pathway that leads from -- that is aerobic

21 biodegradation, showing the chemical structures

22 and what it leads to and specifically how the

23 carbon in the polymer is converted to CH4 and CO2?

24 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. What polymer?

25 Lacks foundation.

92

1 A. For which polymer?

2 Q. In 24, are you referring to any polymer?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Can you identify this pathway for me and

5 write it out so I can see the process?

6 A. I have references. I haven't memorized

7 it. But I've seen it, and I can find it for you.

8 Q. Today, sitting here today?

9 A. I haven't memorized it.

10 Q. In your '199 patent for biodegradable

11 polymer blend, have you filed any amendments to it

12 with the USPTO?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Have you informed the USPTO of the

15 definition of biodegradation or biodegradable

16 contained in footnote 1 of your expert report?

17 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

18 A. Have I sent that -- just sent a letter --

19 Q. Right, to the patent examiner.

20 A. No, I haven't.

21 Q. Do the '199 patent plastics, the ones

22 that are out there, do they biodegrade in

23 landfills?

24 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

25 A. Perhaps.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
24 (Pages 93 to 96)

93

1 Q. Let's shift to the Biodegradable Products

2 Institute. What is the Biodegradable Products

3 Institute?

4 A. The portion of the Biodegradable Products

5 Institute that I have been associated with is the

6 certification of compostability for particular

7 plastics.

8 Q. How are you associated with them in that

9 regard?

10 A. I'm one of -- I was one of the examiners

11 of the testing that took place at certified labs,

12 such that the results would then meet the

13 specifications of compostability.

14 Q. The specifications of BPI for

15 compostability?

16 A. Of D6400.

17 Q. And you would do that determination.

18 Would your determination then result in either a

19 certification or not certified determination?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And when a company receives the BPI

22 certification, are they, to your knowledge,

23 authorized then to place a logo or other form of

24 certification on the products?

25 A. I believe so.

94

1 Q. What does that certification or logo

2 provide; do you know?

3 A. It provides a certification that it meets

4 the standard of the D6400 -- that it has met.

5 Q. And does it indicate that it's

6 compostable or biodegradable?

7 A. Compostable.

8 Q. And is there any other, to your

9 knowledge, information on the logo other than BPI

10 certified and compostable?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Earlier we had discussed Metabolix grants

13 to the center. And I want to present you with a

14 copy of a document that's from UML Education News.

15 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

16 Exhibit No. 7, article dated 06/30/2010, marked.)

17 BY MR. EMORD:

18 Q. What I would like to do is have you take

19 a look at that. It's a short one-page document.

20 And inform me if the content presents an accurate

21 description or is inaccurate in any respect?

22 A. Could I correct prior testimony?

23 Q. Go ahead.

24 A. I apparently misspoke when I said that

25 Brian Igoe was an employee of Mirel. He was

95

1 actually an employee of Telles, which was a

2 spinoff of Mirel into bioplastics.

3 Q. Thank you for that.

4 Anything else about this -- anything

5 about this that is an inaccurate representation,

6 to your knowledge?

7 A. I think the 2.5 million is wrong. It

8 should be 1.5. That's about it.

9 Q. So the figure is wrong. Any other change

10 you would make to ensure its accuracy?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Let's look at another similar document.

13 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

14 Exhibit No. 8, UML.EDU News document dated

15 3/14/12, marked.)

16 BY MR. EMORD:

17 Q. Take a moment. This is a two-page

18 document. It is a UML.EDU news document again.

19 Take a moment and look at that and inform me if

20 there's anything to your knowledge that's

21 inaccurate about the content of that article.

22 A. I don't see anything wrong. The patent

23 holder is not me.

24 Q. Other than that?

25 A. No.

96

1 Q. Who is Steve Mojo?

2 A. Steve Mojo is the, I believe, the head of

3 BPI.

4 Q. Do you have a good relationship with

5 Steve?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. How frequently do you guys talk by phone,

8 for example?

9 A. Not often.

10 Q. E-mail, how frequently do you exchange

11 e-mails?

12 A. Not often.

13 Q. In the last month, how many times have

14 you interacted with Steve Mojo?

15 A. Zero.

16 Q. Last year?

17 A. Zero.

18 Q. Is there anyone else at BPI that you

19 interact with regularly?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Are you on BPI's international advisory

22 board?

23 A. I don't believe so.

24 Q. If they list you on their international

25 advisory board, that would be news to you?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
25 (Pages 97 to 100)

97

1 A. That would be news to me.

2 Q. Are you a member of BPI?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Are you or have you ever been an officer

5 of BPI?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Previously you said you have not done

8 consulting work for BPI?

9 A. I did certification that we went through.

10 Q. So that was consulting work?

11 A. That was --

12 Q. Were you paid?

13 A. I was reimbursed for that.

14 Q. How much were you paid?

15 A. For the whole certification of each

16 company it was $1,000.

17 Q. Per company or for every company?

18 A. Per company.

19 Q. How many companies did you certify?

20 A. About 30, over the ten years or so.

21 Q. Do you continue to perform that function?

22 A. No.

23 Q. When did you discontinue performing that

24 function?

25 A. I believe it was two years ago.

98

1 Q. So from what period to what period did

2 you perform the certification for BPI?

3 A. Probably 2001 to 2011.

4 Q. Who did you interact with at BPI related

5 to that?

6 A. Steve Mojo.

7 Q. How frequently did you interact with

8 Steve concerning the certification issues?

9 A. It would be on average about three per

10 year. So it would have been like probably four

11 times per certification.

12 Q. Did you contact Steve or did Steve

13 contact you first in relationship to this job?

14 A. Steve contacted me. He had a series, a

15 whole list of reviewers.

16 Q. Do you know who recommended you for that

17 position?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Steve didn't mention that?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Has Steve ever recommended you for other

22 work?

23 A. I don't believe so.

24 Q. Has Steve ever been responsible for

25 referring companies to give grants to your center?

99

1 A. No.

2 Q. Have you ever referred companies to Steve

3 for certification or for becoming a member of BPI?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Do you speak at BPI conferences?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Have you ever spoken at any event

8 involving BPI?

9 A. I spoke at a conference in India that

10 Steve Mojo also spoke at.

11 Q. Were you paid in association with that?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did they pay for your transportation to

14 and from?

15 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

16 A. BPI?

17 Q. BPI.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Anyone else, a corporation?

20 A. I think that I had to pay for the air

21 fare to India, and then they covered the hotel,

22 the Indian SIPIT they called it, sponsored the

23 conference.

24 Q. What is BEPS?

25 A. BioEnvironmental Polymer Society. That's

100

1 a society for promoting biodegradable and

2 environmentally degradable polymers. Not

3 promoting them, but to discuss the science around

4 biodegradable and environmentally degradable

5 polymers.

6 Q. Did BPI create BEPS?

7 A. No.

8 Q. It's independent?

9 A. Independent.

10 Q. Are you a founding member of BEPS?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. When was that created?

13 A. That's a good question. I think it was

14 `93. No. `92 or `93.

15 Q. Is Metabolix a member or supporter of

16 BEPS?

17 A. No.

18 Q. I think previously I asked you about

19 complaints, with regard to your knowledge of

20 whether BPI had filed complaints against ECM. Do

21 you know whether BPI filed comments concerning the

22 FTC's green guides?

23 A. Comments in -- no.

24 Q. You weren't involved with the filing of

25 any comments by BPI, if it did file them, with the

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
26 (Pages 101 to 104)

101

1 FTC?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Let's take a look at paragraph 22 of your

4 report. Now, there you refer to hydrolic

5 cleavages. What are hydrolic cleavages?

6 A. Actually, it should be hydrolytic.

7 Q. Okay, thank you. There you explain that

8 microorganisms secrete enzymes that adhere to the

9 surface of the organic materials and cause

10 fissures in the molecular chain known as hydrolic

11 cleavages, and you meant to say?

12 A. Hydrolytic.

13 Q. These cleavages make long-chain molecules

14 shorter, resulting in the release of carbon and

15 energy (heat). Now, assuming I'm a student or

16 whatever, I would like for you to do the same

17 thing, can you take a piece of paper for me and

18 draw the chemical reaction pathway with chemical

19 structures that would illustrate the chemical

20 process that you're defining here in paragraph 22?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Let's get a piece of paper. Can you draw

23 that for me?

24 MS. JOHNSON: A specific polymer?

25 MR. EMORD: I'm looking for the chemical

102

1 reaction pathway with chemical structures that

2 illustrate the process defined in that paragraph.

3 MS. JOHNSON: He can choose whatever --

4 MR. EMORD: Yes.

5 Q. Just go right ahead.

6 A. So this is the polymer.

7 Q. Can you, with appropriate detail, show me

8 how that chemical structure with identification of

9 specific enzymes leads to the hydrolytic cleavage

10 of the polymer chain, and also the release of the

11 elemental carbon and the energy.

12 A. So this is the cleavage, and then if

13 this -- that was a chain, then this molecule would

14 then be metabolized by the microorganism and

15 converted, used as fuel for heat and release the

16 carbon dioxide.

17 Q. Have you identified the specific enzymes

18 there?

19 A. So this would be a lipase.

20 Q. Can you write out the chemical structure

21 for the lipase, the chemical structure?

22 A. Of the enzyme?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. Seriously? Do you know how complex

25 enzymes are?

103

1 Q. No, I don't. Let's make this an exhibit.

2 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

3 Exhibit No. 9, hand-drawn document, marked.)

4 BY MR. EMORD:

5 Q. On page 9 of your report, in paragraph 25

6 you write that degradation and biodegradation are

7 not identical processes. As explained above,

8 biodegradation involves microorganisms breaking

9 down material into its constituent elements, that

10 is, elements found in nature. Degradation (or

11 disintegration) involves fragmenting of the

12 polymer chain due to mechanical stress or

13 chemicals.

14 Page 9, paragraph 27, you go on to state:

15 Notably, the critical difference between

16 degradation and biodegradation is significant to

17 my opinions herein, because ECM's testing

18 materials sometimes conflate these two distinct

19 concepts, and erroneously infer that

20 biodegradation has occurred merely because ECM

21 plastic has disintegrated.

22 If I understand you correctly, you're

23 saying that these two processes, one being biotic,

24 biodegradation, and the other being abiotic,

25 degradation, are understood in science to be

104

1 distinct and that a proper scientific analysis

2 would never conflate the two concepts and consider

3 the two part of biodegradation; is that a fair

4 summary?

5 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

6 A. They are two separate processes. They

7 may occur at the same time, but the

8 disintegration, the chemical and basically the

9 oxidation would occur abiotically, whereas the

10 biodegradation has to occur with microorganisms.

11 Q. Would it be an error for a scientist to

12 characterize an abiotic process as part of

13 biodegradation?

14 A. It would be more proper to separate the

15 two, but the abiotic process could lead to

16 degradation that may enhance biodegradation.

17 Q. Are you aware within the last -- are you

18 aware of the existence of any article within the

19 Journal of Polymer Environment, which identifies

20 abiotic processes as a part of biodegradation?

21 A. Not specifically, but you probably have

22 one.

23 Q. And if you read an article that did do

24 that, would you consider it to be appropriate to

25 publish in the journal?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
27 (Pages 105 to 108)

105

1 A. Again, I don't censor the articles. So

2 if it's someone's opinion that abiotic -- I mean,

3 if they're calling it abiotic, then obviously it's

4 not biodegradation, because it's abiotic.

5 Q. So if someone were to call something

6 abiotic, it would be an error to then include that

7 as a part of biodegradation, in your view?

8 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Asked and

9 answered.

10 A. Again, unless it promoted biodegradation.

11 Q. Is it possible that a first stage process

12 of biodegradation would be depolymerization of the

13 macro molecules into shorter chains?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And does that normally occur outside the

16 organism due to the size of the polymer chain and

17 the insoluble nature of many polymers?

18 A. Mostly.

19 Q. Is it fair to say that extracellular

20 enzymes and/or exoenzymes and abiotic reactions

21 are responsible for the polymeric chain cleavage?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And what does abiotic mean?

24 A. It does not involve microorganisms.

25 Q. Nonbacterial?

106

1 A. Right.

2 Q. I notice in your expert report, in those

3 paragraphs that we've mentioned, that you did not

4 cite any peer-reviewed publication or any

5 publication at all in support of the descriptions

6 of degradation and biodegradation that you give in

7 paragraphs 25 and 27; is that right?

8 A. I have my publications, which I have

9 attached to my CV.

10 Q. Right. But as far as giving me a

11 specific citation in paragraph 25 and 27, you give

12 none, right?

13 A. I give no specific one.

14 Q. Can you name for me a single

15 peer-reviewed journal article that describes

16 degradation and biodegradation as you have in

17 paragraphs 25 and 27?

18 A. So the biodegradation is very similar to

19 what I've described in the Andrady book.

20 Q. You're pointing to Exhibit Number --

21 A. 2.

22 Q. So that's the definition for

23 biodegradation. Now let's take a look at

24 degradation. And we're specifically looking for

25 this concept of it being distinct from

107

1 biodegradation as you've described in paragraph 27

2 and 25.

3 A. I would have to go through the

4 publications.

5 Q. But as you sit here today, you can't

6 recall a specific publication?

7 A. Not the specific one.

8 Q. That's all right. Now, you have other --

9 perhaps U Mass Lowell has other patents that you

10 were an inventor on, right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I have patent number 5,439,985 dated

13 1995. What is that patent for?

14 A. Which one?

15 Q. 5,439,985?

16 A. That's biodegradable and hydrogradable

17 diblock copolymers composed of

18 poly(b-hydroxyalkanoates) and poly(lactones) or

19 poly(lactide) chain segments.

20 Q. Is there an exclusive licensee for that?

21 A. I don't think so.

22 Q. Is it licensed at all?

23 A. I don't think so.

24 Q. How about patent 5,440,007, 1995.

25 A. Composition of and method for forming

108

1 high molecular weight predominantly syndiotactic

2 substituted-poly(b-Propioesters).

3 Q. Is there a licensee for that one?

4 A. I don't believe so.

5 Q. And patent number 6,093,792, dated 2006?

6 A. That's bioresorbable copolymers.

7 Q. Is that one licensed?

8 A. I don't believe so.

9 Q. Are there any other patents that you

10 have, that is, that you are the inventor or that

11 you hold?

12 A. I don't hold any of them. There's a list

13 here.

14 Q. Are any of those licensed? A list here,

15 you're pointing to the back of your report

16 document, which is publications, and you're

17 looking under patents issued in that appendix.

18 Are any of those, other than the '199, licensed?

19 A. So the 7,763,663 is licensed.

20 Q. To whom or to what?

21 A. To Anterios.

22 Q. What is that patent?

23 A. That's Polysaccharide-containing block

24 copolymer particles and uses thereof.

25 Q. What is it about?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
28 (Pages 109 to 112)

109

1 A. It's about a copolymer -- a block

2 copolymer between pullulan and polycaprolactone.

3 Q. Is that for a compostable plastic?

4 A. It's not licensed for a compostable.

5 That's not what the company is using it for.

6 Q. What is it for?

7 A. It's for transdermal delivery.

8 Q. Okay. Like a patch?

9 A. No, a cream. Do you want to know what

10 the active ingredient is?

11 Q. Sure.

12 A. Botox.

13 Q. Any others that were licensed?

14 A. The second one down, Novel biodegradable

15 bone plates and bonding systems, that one was

16 licensed to a company, and that license has been

17 discontinued, and it's currently being offered to

18 another company.

19 Q. Who is it being offered to? Who had it

20 and who is it being offered to?

21 A. Dartmouth Medical, and I can't remember

22 the name of the company -- I don't know whether it

23 has been licensed yet. But as soon as it is, I'll

24 know.

25 Q. The 7,763,663 patent, who is the licensee

110

1 there?

2 A. 7,763,663?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. I've already mentioned that, Anterios.

5 Q. Any others that are licensed?

6 A. So the ones that all say -- from surface

7 finishing, to molded article, anything with Tom

8 Ellison in it, were licensed to Valtech. But that

9 company I don't think exists anymore.

10 Q. And are any of those biodegradable or

11 compostable type products?

12 A. No.

13 Q. The novel plates were biodegradable?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And how about the 7,763,663?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Any others?

18 A. Any others that are biodegradable and

19 licensed?

20 Q. Yes, or compostable.

21 A. And licensed.

22 Q. And licensed. You did mention 5,440,007,

23 `95 patent, and the 5,439,985, but those are not

24 licensed?

25 A. No.

111

1 Q. And the 6,093,792, and that's not

2 licensed either?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. So the two that are licensed are

5 7,963,663, and what was the number for the novel

6 biodegradable bone plates?

7 A. 0234754 A1.

8 MR. EMORD: For those two, Counsel, I

9 would like to ask that they be -- that the patents

10 be produced and any underlying documentation that

11 the witness has or can acquire be produced.

12 Q. Let's go on to a couple of questions

13 about the report. Is it your contention that

14 plastics are free of impurities, additives and

15 processing aids?

16 A. You mean in terms of --

17 Q. In the real world, plastics have

18 impurities, additives, processing aids in them,

19 right?

20 A. There are some plastics used for medical

21 applications that are free of those impurities.

22 Q. Are they completely free of impurities,

23 additives and processing aids?

24 A. Some of them are.

25 Q. But for the rest of the market, the

112

1 plastics contain impurities and processing aids

2 and additives?

3 A. To some degree.

4 Q. Do you contend that these impurities,

5 additives, processing aids that are in plastics

6 generally do not create hospitable environments

7 for microorganisms?

8 A. There could be some additives that are

9 degradable.

10 Q. Aside from that, just, not additives that

11 specifically are for the purpose of degradation,

12 but just in the normal processing of virtually all

13 plastics, the impurities, the additives, the

14 processing aids, generally, do those in your view

15 create a hospitable environment for

16 microorganisms?

17 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Vague as to

18 hospitable.

19 Q. You can answer.

20 A. I would say the vast majority would not

21 fall into that category.

22 Q. And in paragraph 37 of your expert,

23 report you describe there to be -- you use the

24 language, overwhelming scientific consensus that

25 conventional plastics are not biodegradable after

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
29 (Pages 113 to 116)

113

1 customary disposal. I saw no specific citation

2 for that proposition in paragraph 37. Can you

3 cite for me a peer-reviewed scientific publication

4 that supports that proposition that there is an

5 overwhelming scientific consensus that

6 conventional plastics are not biodegradable after

7 customary disposal?

8 A. This article.

9 Q. Exhibit Number 2?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Where in Exhibit Number 2?

12 A. 9.2.

13 Q. And specifically where?

14 A. Page 360, 9.2.

15 MS. JOHNSON: Are you referring to the

16 whole section?

17 A. Yes. The justification section.

18 Q. And there you say that the specific --

19 the entire section then stands for the proposition

20 that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus

21 that conventional plastics are not biodegradable

22 after customary disposal?

23 A. Yes, and there's references too, number 2

24 in particular, environmental issues and

25 opportunities.

114

1 Q. Number 2, and the reference is on page

2 370 you're referring to?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Anything else?

5 A. There's probably more.

6 Q. Are you aware any of publications that

7 conclude that conventional plastics are

8 biodegradable?

9 A. By conventional plastics, do you mean the

10 biodegradable plastic subset?

11 Q. You tell me what conventional plastics,

12 what that term is generally understood to mean?

13 A. Typically, it is the inexpensive plastics

14 that we use every day, the vast majority of -- the

15 large quantity plastics.

16 Q. And as I say, you're not familiar with

17 any peer-reviewed journal articles that discuss

18 the biodegradability of conventional plastics?

19 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

20 A. Within one year?

21 Q. No. I'm not using that definition. Just

22 the term biodegradability as it's used in the

23 scientific publications. As used in the

24 scientific publications, are you familiar with any

25 scientific publications peer-reviewed that stand

115

1 for the proposition that conventional plastics do

2 indeed biodegrade?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, what publications are you familiar

5 with that stand for the proposition that

6 conventional plastics biodegrade?

7 A. There are publications concerning

8 polyethylene.

9 Q. Any other plastic? In particular

10 polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinylchloride,

11 polystyrene, polypropylene?

12 A. I think there are some on polypropylene.

13 I think there's one on PET.

14 Q. And these stand for the proposition that

15 these plastics are biodegradable?

16 A. No. Some -- not completely, but there's

17 some degradation.

18 Q. There's some biodegradation taking place?

19 A. That's their assumption.

20 MR. EMORD: Let's mark for identification

21 Exhibit 10, a copy of an article in the

22 International Journal of Molecular Sciences dated

23 2009.

24 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

25 Exhibit No. 10, Biodegradability of Plastics,

116

1 marked.)

2 BY MR. EMORD:

3 Q. My question is whether you have seen this

4 article before?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. When did you first see this article?

7 A. I'm not sure.

8 Q. Was it only in connection with this

9 proceeding, or was it before this proceeding?

10 A. I believe it was in connection with this

11 proceeding.

12 Q. Prior to this proceeding, you had not

13 seen that article?

14 A. I don't believe so.

15 Q. If you look at paragraph 67 of your

16 report, in particular on page 27, the last -- the

17 second to the last statement. This is contrary to

18 widely accepted scientific knowledge regarding how

19 such microorganisms function with respect to

20 conventional plastic. Do you see that sentence?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. There is no citation specifically listed

23 for that sentence, correct?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. Can you cite for me a peer-reviewed

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
30 (Pages 117 to 120)

117

1 journal article which concludes that it is

2 contrary to widely accepted scientific knowledge

3 that microorganisms work synergistically to

4 produce enzymes that metabolize plastic?

5 A. Well, this one that you just handed me

6 says that conventional plastics such as

7 polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene,

8 polyvinylchloride, and PET are nonbiodegradable.

9 Q. However, does the article conclude that

10 those plastics are entirely impervious to

11 biodegradation?

12 A. I mean, that's what it says, that they're

13 nonbiodegradable.

14 Q. Elsewhere in the article, does that it

15 reveal any information that indicates that those

16 plastics do biodegrade?

17 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Just the plain

18 plastic or untreated conventional plastics?

19 MR. EMORD: Here the article is

20 concerning untreated plastics.

21 A. I think that this author, the conclusion

22 is that they're nonbiodegradable.

23 Q. That's your view of that article. Does

24 the author of the article indicate that the

25 plastics undergo a conversion that makes them

118

1 biodegradable, that is, the nonbiodegradable

2 plastics undergo a conversion that can make them

3 biodegradable? In particular, there is an

4 alteration from short-chain low-molecular weight

5 to some other form as a result of interactivity

6 with microorganisms between the microorganisms and

7 plastics?

8 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

9 Q. I don't want to lock you into 10 for a

10 response to this question. Let me ask you this

11 question.

12 Is it your opinion that short-chain

13 low-molecular-weight polymers are metabolized by

14 some microorganisms?

15 A. I would say some short-chain

16 low-molecular-weight polymers are metabolized by

17 microorganisms.

18 Q. If you look at footnote 20 of your report

19 on page 29, you recite in footnote 20 that there

20 has been one documented instance of a particular

21 strain of fungi capable of biodegrading a

22 petroleum-based plastic. And you do provide a

23 citation for that.

24 Then you say, there's no evidence that

25 any of these strains exist in the United States or

119

1 in landfills in the U.S. But you do not provide a

2 citation for that.

3 First, let me ask you this, is it your

4 proposition then that there is only one strain of

5 fungi capable of biodegrading plastic?

6 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

7 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

8 A. No.

9 Q. What is your opinion as to whether fungi

10 can biodegrade plastic?

11 A. There are plastics that can be degraded

12 by fungi. This here is a particular -- this is

13 the only documented thing that I've seen, is that

14 this strain lived totally on this polymer, which

15 was unique.

16 Q. And upon what evidentiary basis do you

17 rely for the proposition that there is no evidence

18 that any of these strains, you used the words

19 these strains in reference to the fungi, you

20 referred previously to a particular strain, but

21 then you say these strains exist in the U.S. and

22 landfills in the U.S. What is your evidentiary

23 basis for the proposition that there is no

24 evidence that any of these strains exist in the

25 U.S. or in landfills?

120

1 A. Because I haven't found any evidence of

2 it.

3 Q. But you have no affirmative evidence in

4 the form of peer-reviewed literature in the area

5 of biochemistry or microbiology that establishes

6 that these strains are not extant in the

7 continental confines of the United States?

8 A. So --

9 Q. In other words, do you have affirmative

10 proof that these strains don't exist in the United

11 States?

12 A. That's my opinion.

13 Q. But you have no specific proof?

14 A. This is a biodegradable polymer anyway.

15 Q. But you have no specific proof that those

16 strains don't exist in the United States?

17 A. My statement is I haven't seen evidence

18 that they exist in the United States.

19 Q. But you haven't seen evidence that they

20 affirmatively do not exist in the United States?

21 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Asked and

22 answered.

23 A. I haven't seen evidence that they do

24 exist.

25 Q. Or that they do not exist in the United

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
31 (Pages 121 to 124)

121

1 States?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

3 A. I don't know what kind of evidence would

4 be that they do not exist.

5 Q. Such as in a peer-reviewed journal

6 article related to this field of study, in which

7 there was a specific conclusion that these strains

8 do not exist in the United States?

9 A. I have not seen that.

10 Q. Now, if we turn to paragraph 86 of your

11 report.

12 (Recess.)

13 BY MR. EMORD:

14 Q. Is polycaprolactone a biodegradable

15 plastic?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Are polyolefins biodegradable?

18 A. Most of the evidence says no. There is

19 some evidence, I think, from Ann-Christine

20 Albertsson that maybe one percent degrades in I

21 think it was a couple years from the carbon 14.

22 There are some other indications that possibly the

23 low-molecular-weight oxidized polyethylene may be

24 degradable.

25 Q. Now, are you familiar with the

122

1 peer-reviewed works of Ying Zheng on plastic waste

2 biodegradation?

3 A. I believe it's one of the papers that I

4 reviewed.

5 Q. Did you know of the existence of that

6 article before the litigation in this case?

7 A. I don't believe so.

8 Q. Did you know of the existence of that

9 article before you wrote your expert report in the

10 case?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. You have no specific recollection?

13 A. No.

14 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

15 Exhibit No. 11, A Review of Plastic Waste

16 Biodegradation, marked.)

17 BY MR. EMORD:

18 Q. Is this the article that you mentioned

19 you saw in connection with this litigation?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, does it refresh your recollection as

22 to whether you've seen it before you wrote your

23 expert report?

24 A. I don't remember.

25 Q. Now, in the abstract part of it, which is

123

1 a summary, Dr. Zheng writes, this review looks at

2 the technological advancement made in the

3 development of more easily biodegradable plastics

4 and the biodegradation of conventional plastics by

5 microorganisms.

6 Do you see that on the front page?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I know you said you've become familiar

9 with this through the course of the litigation,

10 but I'd like you to take moment before I ask you

11 questions and look at the article, and when you

12 have done that, just let me know. I want you to

13 refresh your recollection as to its content. If

14 you need to look at something in particular and

15 take more time, we can do that.

16 A. Okay.

17 Q. Now, I wanted to ask you whether you

18 agree with the author, and more particularly, is

19 there anything in this article with which you

20 disagree?

21 A. This is a review of other work.

22 Q. Right. My question is: As far as the

23 content of the article is concerned, is there any

24 specific aspect of it that you find to be in

25 error?

124

1 A. I mean, there may be some of the work

2 that he's citing that may be in error.

3 Q. But as far as his analysis and

4 conclusions are concerned, do you find anything

5 remiss?

6 A. His statement about -- I'm not sure that

7 he has the thermoset plastics such as aliphatic

8 polyester.

9 Q. Where are you looking at now?

10 A. In the middle of the abstract.

11 Q. What page?

12 A. Page 243.

13 Q. In particular what part?

14 A. The middle.

15 Q. Where he refers to thermoset plastics

16 such as and so forth?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What do you find in error?

19 A. I think he might have meant thermoplastic

20 plastics.

21 Q. Instead of thermoset plastics?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Anything else?

24 A. Not that I've found.

25 Q. Let me ask you this question: Can you

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
32 (Pages 125 to 128)

125

1 name for me the kinds of enzymes used by microbial

2 life to degrade plastics?

3 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

4 A. You mean the general classes?

5 Q. The different classes of enzymes that are

6 used.

7 A. There's basically hydrolases and

8 oxydases.

9 Q. And can you give me some specific kinds

10 of hydrolases that are used by microorganisms to

11 degrade plastics?

12 MS. JOHNSON: Objection to plastics.

13 A. Biodegradable plastics?

14 Q. Well, yes.

15 A. Lipases and proteinases and oxidases,

16 peroxidases.

17 Q. Anything else in the hydrolase category?

18 A. I've worked a lot with proteinase K. I'm

19 sure there's lots of them that I've seen. I don't

20 have them memorized.

21 Q. Is it fair to say that your work has

22 focused on a subset of the universe of all of the

23 hydrolases?

24 A. Sure.

25 Q. And you mentioned proteinase K. Is there

126

1 another hydrolase that you've worked with?

2 A. Possibly, but I don't recall at this

3 time.

4 Q. The one you do distinctly recall is

5 proteinase K. How about in the oxidases, can you

6 name for me the oxidases?

7 A. I haven't worked with any of the

8 oxidases.

9 Q. You really can't name oxidases that might

10 be involved in --

11 A. Well, there's horseradish peroxidase.

12 That's a common one.

13 Q. Any others?

14 A. I'm sure I've seen them, but I haven't

15 memorized them.

16 Q. Now, have you read -- I have to spell out

17 his name, B-H-A-R-D-W-A-J -- Bhardwaj, perhaps,

18 his article on Microbial Population Associated

19 with Plastic Degradation?

20 A. I believe I have.

21 Q. Did you read that before you wrote your

22 expert report, or is that something that has come

23 to your attention since the drafting of your

24 expert report?

25 A. If it wasn't provided to me by complaint

127

1 counsel, it probably would have been after.

2 MR. EMORD: So let's mark this as an

3 Exhibit 12.

4 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

5 Exhibit No. 12, Microbial Population Associated

6 with Plastic Degradation, marked.)

7 BY MR. EMORD:

8 Q. Go ahead and take a moment to read the

9 article. It's not that long.

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. If we look at paragraph 2 under the

12 introduction on the first page, a definition is

13 given for biodegradation. Did you agree with that

14 definition?

15 A. Again, this is a review article that's

16 just reporting 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

17 Q. It is a review article, and there are

18 many articles reviewed as a part of that. He

19 gives a definition for biodegradation in the

20 second paragraph. The question is whether that

21 definition, which is in the first sentence, is one

22 with which you agree or disagree?

23 A. Well, I disagree with the polyethylene,

24 polystyrene.

25 Q. Any other aspect of it?

128

1 A. I think he's combining both

2 biodegradation and environmental degradation.

3 Q. He is.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you for pointing that out. When it

6 comes to this sentence, I want you to tell me

7 whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

8 Microorganisms degrade the polymers like

9 polyethylene, polyurethane by using it as a

10 substrate for their growth. Do you agree with

11 that?

12 A. No.

13 Q. What is your opinion as to that sentence?

14 A. It doesn't indicate a mechanism. By

15 using it for their growth is not a mechanism for

16 degradation.

17 Q. He explains the mechanism here shortly,

18 and we'll get into that. So you disagree with

19 that. Is there a specific source that you would

20 base your disagreement upon? I notice he lists a

21 source as footnote 8, and in footnote 8 he lists

22 Glass JE, Swift G, Agricultural and Synthetic

23 Polymers, Biodegradation and Utilization, ACS

24 Symposium Series 433, American Chemical Society,

25 Washington, D.C., for the proposition that you

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
33 (Pages 129 to 132)

129

1 just stated in challenging it. Do you have a

2 source that you would rely upon?

3 A. The one you gave me from Tokiwa.

4 Q. You would use that as a source?

5 Specifically what in Tokiwa would you rely upon?

6 A. Plastics such as polyethylene,

7 polystyrene, polypropylene polyvinylchloride are

8 nonbiodegradable.

9 Q. So as a general proposition, many

10 scientists take the position that is articulated

11 there. That is with regard to the, is it

12 hydrophobic versus, the hydrophilic versus

13 hydrophobic aspects, correct?

14 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

15 Q. When you start off with PE and PP from a

16 hydrophilic source to a hydrophobic source, does

17 that enable -- that transformation enable

18 otherwise nonbiodegradable polymers to become

19 biodegradable?

20 A. No.

21 Q. So can microorganisms transform the

22 surfaces of say PP and PE from hydrophilic to

23 hydrophobic?

24 A. I don't believe so.

25 Q. You're not aware of any scientific

130

1 evidence on that transformation?

2 A. I am not.

3 Q. Now, if you look at page 2 of the article

4 under the heading mechanism of enzymatic

5 biodegradation. I'll have the court reporter

6 insert into the transcript at this point the

7 entire content of the paragraph under the heading

8 mechanism of enzymatic biodegradation as a point

9 of reference.

10 "Mechanism of Enzymatic Biodegradation.

11 "The most attractive plastic waste

12 treatment method is enzymatic degradation.

13 Polyethylene degradation through microbial enzymes

14 comprises two steps. Firstly enzyme adheres to

15 the polyethylene substrate and then catalyzes a

16 hydrolic cleavage. Intracellular and

17 extracellular depolymerases in fungi and bacteria

18 degrade the polyethylene. Endogenous carbon

19 content by the accumulating bacteria themselves is

20 hydrolyzed through intracellular degradation while

21 the utilization of exogenous carbon source not

22 necessarily by accumulating microorganisms is the

23 extracellular degradation. Complex polymers

24 disintegrate into short chains of oligomers,

25 dimers, and monomers which can pass through the

131

1 bacterial membranes and act as a source of carbon

2 and energy. This process is referred as

3 depolymerization. And mineralization is the

4 degradation process in which the end products are

5 carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), or methane

6 (CH4) are produced. Temperature, pressure and

7 moisture are the physical parameters which

8 mechanically damage the polymers due to which the

9 biological forces like enzymes and other

10 metabolites produced by microbes induce the

11 process. The mechanism of the biodegradation of

12 plastics can be easily understood by following the

13 flow chart (Figure 1)."

14 Now, there Dr. Bhardwaj describes in some

15 detail his view of the mechanism of enzymatic

16 degradation, and I want to go through it in parts.

17 I want to take parts of it and get your opinion.

18 He says, the most attractive plastic waste

19 treatment method is enzymatic degradation. Would

20 you agree with that?

21 A. No.

22 Q. What is your opinion?

23 A. My opinion would be production of enzymes

24 for treating waste would probably be very

25 expensive.

132

1 Q. Now, when you take a look at the next

2 part of his analysis there, he starts off, he

3 gives two parts, polyethylene degradation through

4 microbial enzymes comprises two steps. First,

5 enzyme adheres to the polyethylene substrate and

6 then catalyzes a hydrolytic cleavage. Do you

7 agree with that?

8 MS. JOHNSON: I think it says hydrolic

9 cleavage.

10 Q. Okay. Do you agree with that?

11 A. No.

12 Q. And what is your opinion?

13 A. My opinion is that he's wrong.

14 Q. In what respect?

15 A. That this would be the mechanism for a

16 polyester.

17 Q. Then he says, intracellular and

18 extracellular depolymerases in fungi and bacteria

19 degrade the polyethylene. Do you disagree with

20 that?

21 A. Where is that?

22 Q. The very next sentence.

23 A. I disagree with that.

24 Q. In what respect do you disagree with

25 that?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
34 (Pages 133 to 136)

133

1 A. He's referring to reference 31.

2 Q. Which is?

3 A. Which is degradation of microbial

4 polyesters. I think he's talking about

5 polyesters.

6 Q. It's your opinion that he did not mention

7 but should have mentioned that he meant or should

8 have meant polyesters?

9 A. I mean, that's what he gives as proof,

10 and if he did say microbial polyesters, it would

11 all make sense.

12 Q. But he doesn't limit it in that way?

13 A. He doesn't say it.

14 Q. Then he goes on to say, endogenous carbon

15 content by the accumulating bacteria themselves is

16 hydrolyzed through intracellular degradation,

17 while the utilization of exogenous carbon source

18 not necessarily by accumulating microorganisms is

19 the extracellular degradation.

20 A. Again, that would be correct for

21 microbial polyesters.

22 Q. But he is talking about extracellular

23 degradation, and he is talking about an abiotic

24 process there, no?

25 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

134

1 Q. Is that a biotic or an abiotic process?

2 A. This would be biotic.

3 Q. Complex polymers disintegrate into short

4 chains of oligomers, dimers and momomers which can

5 pass through the bacterial membranes and act as a

6 source of carbon and energy.

7 Do you agree with that or is it again in

8 your view restricted to polyesters?

9 A. I think he's talking about polyesters.

10 Q. You wouldn't agree with that general

11 proposition unless it was cabined with language

12 referring to polyesters?

13 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

14 A. Yes. I think he's misquoted the

15 reference.

16 Q. His own reference?

17 A. Not his own.

18 Q. Well, the one that he cites?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. He says, this process is referred to as

21 depolymerization, and then he says, and

22 mineralization is the degradation process in which

23 the end products are carbon dioxide, water or

24 methane, that they are produced. Again is this

25 the same thing, this occurs with polyesters but

135

1 not with others?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

3 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

4 A. That's my conclusion. This is enzymatic

5 biodegradation of polyester.

6 Q. Then he refers to temperature, pressure

7 and moisture are the physical parameters which

8 mechanically damage the polymers due to which the

9 biological forces like enzymes and other

10 metabolites produced by microbes induce the

11 process. Here it seems he's talking about a

12 synergistic or a complementary circumstance

13 between biotic and abiotic processes. Do you

14 disagree with that characterization?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Because you would say that they have to

17 be considered distinct, right?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Why would you disagree?

20 A. I wouldn't consider temperature, pressure

21 and moisture to be a form of mechanical damage.

22 Q. What would you consider it?

23 A. It would be more of a chemical

24 degradation due to the enzymes. Enzymes only

25 catalyze the reaction.

136

1 Q. And look at his figure 1. Is his figure

2 1, in your judgment, remiss in any respect?

3 A. Figure 1 is, I think, a reasonable

4 pathway for some degradation of biodegradable

5 polymers.

6 Q. Which ones do you think it wouldn't apply

7 to?

8 A. Polylactic acid.

9 Q. Any others?

10 A. Polydioxanone.

11 Q. Any others?

12 A. Polyglycolic acid.

13 Q. Any others?

14 A. Polyvinyl alcohol.

15 Q. Any others? Let's do it this way. Would

16 you say that this figure 1 is applicable to most

17 polymers or to only a minority of them?

18 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Plastic

19 polymers?

20 A. Minority.

21 Q. Are the surfaces of polypropylene and

22 polyethylene plastics hydrophilic or hydrophobic?

23 A. Hydrophobic.

24 Q. Can microorganisms transform

25 polypropylene and polyethylene plastics from

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
35 (Pages 137 to 140)

137

1 hydrophilic to hydrophobic?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

3 A. By themselves? I don't believe so.

4 Q. By themselves is rather stringent,

5 because they're in the environment. I don't mean

6 by themselves, I mean, does this occur?

7 A. No. You said do microorganisms cause it.

8 Q. Can microorganisms transform the surfaces

9 of polypropylene and polyethylene from hydrophilic

10 to hydrophobic?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Are you familiar with the work of

13 Dr. J. Arutchelvi, A-R-U-T-C-H-E-L-V-I?

14 A. I have seen that.

15 Q. Did you see that before you wrote your

16 expert report or afterwards?

17 A. Again, if it wasn't produced by complaint

18 counsel, then it would have been after.

19 MR. EMORD: Let's mark it for

20 identification as Exhibit 13.

21 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

22 Exhibit No. 13, Biodegradation of Polyethylene and

23 Polypropylene, marked.)

24 BY MR. EMORD:

25 Q. Have you read this article?

138

1 A. Yes, I have.

2 Q. And if you'll look on page 10, which is

3 the second page in, under the title of mechanism

4 of biodegradation, and I would ask that the court

5 reporter insert at this point in the deposition

6 the entirety of the content of page 10 under the

7 mechanism of biodegradation heading.

8 "Mechanism of Biodegradation.

9 "Biodegradation of polymers involves

10 following steps:

11 1. Attachment of microorganism to the

12 surface of the polymer.

13 2. Growth of microorganism utilizing the

14 polymer as the carbon source.

15 3. Primary degradation of the polymer and

16 4. Ultimate degradation.

17 Microorganisms can attach to the surface,

18 if the polymer surface is hydrophilic. Since PP

19 and PE have only CH2 groups, the surfaces are

20 hydrophobic. Initial physical or chemical

21 degradation leads to the insertion of hydrophilic

22 groups on the polymer surface making it more

23 hydrophilic (insertion of hydrophilic groups also

24 decreases the surface energy). Once the organism

25 gets attached to the surface, it starts growing by

139

1 using the polymer as the carbon source. In the

2 primary degradation, the main chain cleaves,

3 leading to the formation of low-molecular-weight

4 fragments (oligomers), dimers or monomers. The

5 degradation is due to the extracellular enzymes

6 secreted by the organism. These low-molecular7 weight compounds are further utilized by the

8 microbes as carbon and energy sources. Small

9 oligomers may also diffuse into the organism and

10 get assimilated. The ultimate products of

11 degradation are CO2, H2O and biomass under aerobic

12 conditions. Anaerobic microorganisms can also

13 degrade these polymers under anoxic conditions.

14 The primary products then are CO2, H2O, CH4 and

15 biomass under methanogenic condition or H2S, CO2

16 and H2O under sulfidogenic condition. The

17 environmental conditions decide the group of

18 microorganisms and the degradative pathway

19 involved. Ultimate degradation of recalcitrant

20 synthetic polymers may take several hundred years.

21 Additives, antioxidants and other stabilizers

22 added to commercial polymers may be toxic to the

23 organisms or may slow down the rate of

24 biodegradation."

25 Dr. McCarthy, I would like you to focus

140

1 on that section, and I'm going to ask you a

2 question. He explains here in the first part of

3 the paragraph, biodegradation of polymers involves

4 the following steps, and then he lists four steps.

5 Do you agree with that representation of the steps

6 of biodegradation of polymers?

7 A. No.

8 Q. In what respect do you disagree with it?

9 A. Typically, the microorganism would

10 secrete the extracellular enzyme to degrade the

11 polymer. The one we went through in, I think, it

12 was the last one.

13 Q. Where do you think that is germane to

14 your criticism of what he's written?

15 A. He doesn't have it in there.

16 Q. And you say it should be in there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, if you look at the sentence

19 beginning microorganisms can attach to the surface

20 if the polymer surface is hydrophilic. Do you

21 agree with that?

22 A. I'm not sure. It may be easier if it's

23 hydrophilic, but they can probably attach if it's

24 hydrophobic too.

25 Q. Is this really a matter that is outside

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
36 (Pages 141 to 144)

141

1 of your area of expertise as a plastics engineer,

2 more in the zone of a microbiologist or

3 biochemist?

4 A. No. This is --

5 Q. You feel comfortable with this?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, it says since PP and PE have only

8 CH2 groups, the surfaces are hydrophobic. Initial

9 physical or chemical degradation leads to the

10 insertion of hydrophilic groups on the polymer

11 surface making it more hydrophilic. Insertion of

12 hydrophilic groups also decreases the surface

13 energy. Do you agree or disagree with that?

14 A. I disagree with that.

15 Q. What is your opinion?

16 A. That the -- that this insertion of

17 hydrophilic groups is not --

18 Q. Not important?

19 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

20 A. I don't think it's realistic.

21 Q. It doesn't happen?

22 A. I don't think it happens.

23 Q. Then he says, once the organism -- excuse

24 me. You don't think it happens. Can you cite for

25 me a source in the peer-reviewed literature that

142

1 concludes that it does not happen, specifically

2 that that does not happen?

3 A. I think the Tokiwa paper.

4 Q. Now, specifically -- what's the number on

5 the front of that one?

6 A. 10.

7 Q. Exhibit 10. You think that paper

8 establishes that this process does not take place.

9 You're nodding your head yes?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Any other source?

12 A. There are probably other sources.

13 Q. Is there any original research that

14 you've performed on this issue in your lab?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Now, if we go on to the next sentence,

17 once the organism gets attached to the surface, it

18 starts growing by using the polymer as the carbon

19 source. Do you see that part?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you disagree with that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you have a source that would stand for

24 that proposition? The same thing, Tokiwa?

25 A. There's many sources that microorganisms

143

1 can't -- that the large high-molecular-weight

2 polymers that are solid, so in order to have a

3 surface, it has to be solid, that the

4 microorganisms cannot then -- cannot take that

5 in -- it's just not realistic.

6 Q. If the microorganism were to be able to

7 transfer a polymer surface to hydrophilic, which

8 would lower necessarily the weight, molecular

9 weight, right?

10 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

11 A. No. It says they're inserting

12 hydrophilic groups.

13 Q. Would this lower the molecular weight or

14 have no effect on the molecular weight?

15 A. No effect.

16 Q. Now, it then proceeds with, in the

17 primary degradation the main chain cleaves leading

18 to the formation of low-molecular-weight fragments

19 (oligomers), dimers, and monomers. You disagree

20 with that. Is that true? In the primary

21 degradation the main chain cleaves leading to the

22 formation of low-molecular-weight fragments.

23 A. So the next sentence -- he doesn't give a

24 mechanism for the cleavage of the main chain. He

25 just says the main chain cleaves, which isn't

144

1 realistic.

2 Q. You don't think that happens?

3 A. I think that he should have put the next

4 sentence before that. Without the extracellular

5 enzymes, the chain is not going to cleave by

6 itself.

7 Q. And he cites for this proposition number

8 24, Vasile C, Degradation and Decomposition, in

9 the Handbook of Polyolefins and Properties in

10 1993. Are you familiar with that publication?

11 A. I don't believe so.

12 Q. Let's go on to the next sentence. The

13 degradation is due to the extracellular enzymes

14 secreted by the organism. Do you agree or

15 disagree with that?

16 A. That would be how it would degrade if it

17 was a polyester.

18 Q. But only if it was a polyester?

19 A. Or an oxidized low-molecular-weight

20 polyethylene.

21 Q. Anything else?

22 A. Polyurethane, polyether.

23 Q. Anything else?

24 A. There's a whole bunch.

25 Q. You're referring now to your patent?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
37 (Pages 145 to 148)

145

1 A. No.

2 MS. JOHNSON: What exhibit?

3 A. This is Number 10.

4 Q. Okay. Page what of Number 10?

5 A. Page 3726. So poly(ethylene adipate),

6 polycaprolactone, poly beta-propiolactone,

7 poly(butylene succinate), polyethylene succinate,

8 aliphatic aromatic copolyester. Poly 3

9 hydroxybutyrate. And polyurethanes and nylon 6,

10 and nylon 4.

11 Q. That would be then the entire universe of

12 polymers that would be affected?

13 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

14 A. It was just one set that you asked for.

15 There probably are others.

16 Q. If you look at the remainder of that

17 section under mechanism of biodegradation, can you

18 indicate for me whether you agree or disagree with

19 content and your reasons?

20 A. Starting where?

21 Q. Starting with the degradation is due to

22 the extracellular enzymes secreted by the organism

23 and forward.

24 A. I agree with respect to biodegradable

25 polymers.

146

1 Q. But not polymers generally?

2 A. Not polymers generally.

3 Q. Now, I'm going to identify a couple

4 articles just to see if you have familiarity with

5 them. If you don't, of course we're not going to

6 ask you about them. I just want to check to see

7 if you've read them before or are familiar with

8 them.

9 Have you read the peer-reviewed article

10 by Mueller RJ entitled Biological Degradation of

11 Synthetic Polyesters Enzymes as Potential

12 Catalysts for Polyester Recycling and Process

13 Biochemistry?

14 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Do you have a

15 copy of the article?

16 MR. EMORD: No. I'm just seeing if he

17 knows that as a familiar source.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You're familiar with that article?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. What does that article stand for?

22 A. Basically what you read as the title,

23 that he found an enzyme that was able to

24 hydrolytically cleave PET.

25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Do you think synthetic

147

1 plastics biodegrade in and of themselves?

2 A. Some of them.

3 Q. Have you read the peer-reviewed article

4 by Shaw, et al. entitled Biological Degradation of

5 Plastics, a Comprehensive Review in Biotechnology

6 Advances, 2008?

7 A. I believe so.

8 Q. Do you recall the substance of that

9 article?

10 A. I think it was another review like these

11 reviews.

12 Q. Do you recall what the gist or

13 proposition of that article?

14 A. It was just reporting on what other

15 people have reported.

16 Q. About the biological degradation of

17 plastics?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, does low density PE biodegrade?

20 A. High-molecular-weight low density

21 polyethylene does not biodegrade.

22 Q. Have you read the peer-reviewed article

23 by P-R-A-M-I-L-A, R, et al. entitled

24 Biodegradation of Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)

25 by Fungi Isolated from Municipal Landfill Areas,

148

1 in the Journal of Microbiological Biotechnology

2 Research 2011?

3 A. I think so.

4 Q. Do you remember what that was about?

5 A. I think it was a report of small amounts

6 of degradation.

7 Q. Does low density polyethylene biodegrade?

8 A. I don't believe so.

9 Q. You mention in your report

10 radiological --

11 A. Do you mean biodegrade at all or just --

12 Q. Biodegrade at all. Do you want to answer

13 again?

14 A. In all these polymers there's molecular

15 weight distribution and there could be some

16 low-molecular-weight chains that could be oxidized

17 that may be able to be degraded.

18 Q. I appreciate that. Now, radiological

19 marker C testing. Now, in your report you

20 identify that -- you said there's one test that

21 you would deem essentially -- and correct me if

22 I'm wrong -- dispositive as to whether additives

23 like ECMs cause biodegradation of plastics

24 containing them, and that test is 14C, right?

25 A. Carbon 14, yes.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
38 (Pages 149 to 152)

149

1 Q. And just for context, in paragraph 60 on

2 page 24 you write, absent an approved ASTM

3 specification, it is my opinion that to

4 scientifically prove a claim that the plastic -

5 not merely the additive and inoculum - is

6 biodegrading, the claimant must support its claim

7 with at least one test with positive results from

8 14C labeling of the conventional plastic, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And are you aware of any peer-reviewed

11 journal article that identifies radiological

12 marker C testing as the only definitive test to

13 establish biodegradation of plastics?

14 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

15 A. So when Eastman was introducing their

16 copolyester that's PET with the aliphatic

17 polyester, they did get some results that there

18 was biodegradation. And it was believed that PET

19 did not degrade. And so they labeled the benzene

20 ring in the PET and then did the degradation test

21 and proved that the -- because they didn't want

22 the benzene rings to be just not degrading in the

23 environment. So they proved that the benzene

24 rings degraded.

25 Again, as long as it was enough -- I

150

1 think it was 50 percent aliphatic polyester. And

2 that was a very affordable test.

3 Q. My question really is different, in that

4 I'm looking for whether there is -- whether you're

5 aware of a peer-reviewed journal article that has

6 identified radiological marker C testing as the

7 only definitive test to establish biodegradation

8 of plastics?

9 A. Yes, I think that resulted in a

10 peer-reviewed article.

11 Q. Did it identify radiological marker C

12 testing as the only definitive test?

13 A. Yes. Because it was unclear --

14 Q. Let's get the citation for that. When

15 was it published?

16 A. I'm not sure.

17 Q. Do you have that article?

18 A. Let me see. It was around the time of my

19 patent. Not my patent. The university's patent.

20 Yes, around `98 or `97.

21 Q. Where was it published?

22 A. I don't know.

23 Q. In a peer-reviewed journal?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you have a copy of it?

151

1 A. Not on me.

2 Q. Do you have it back in Lowell?

3 A. Probably.

4 Q. May we have a copy of that article? Did

5 you say it was Eastman?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you remember who the authors were?

8 A. Charles Buchanan.

9 Q. B-U-C-H-A-N-A-N?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Anyone else?

12 A. I'm sure there were others.

13 Q. Where is Charles Buchanan?

14 A. I'm just guessing. He's probably on his

15 farm in Tennessee because he's retired. Or he's

16 in Florida where everybody else goes.

17 Q. Has the 14C radiological marker that you

18 recommended as a confirmatory test already been

19 used to prove that polyethylene biodegrades?

20 A. It's been used to prove that a small

21 portion of polyethylene biodegrades.

22 Q. Do you remember what the source is for

23 that information?

24 A. That's the Albertsson paper.

25 Q. Are you familiar with that article?

152

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Let's take a look at it.

3 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

4 Exhibit No. 14, Biodegradation of Synthetic

5 Polymers. II. A Limited Microbial Conversion of

6 14C in Polyethylene to 14CO2 by Some Soil Fungi,

7 marked.)

8 BY MR. EMORD:

9 Q. Now, did you become familiar with that

10 article before this litigation or after?

11 A. Before.

12 Q. And what's going on here? She's got

13 polyethylene film. She does what with it, and how

14 does this C14 process work? What were the

15 results?

16 A. So they bought carbon 14 labeled ethylene

17 and then polymerized it to polyethylene. And then

18 studied the release of carbon 14 labeled carbon

19 dioxide from that polyethylene.

20 Q. They're really studying the gas release,

21 the carbon dioxide release?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. What did they determine?

24 A. They determined that they get .4 percent

25 degradation in 800 days.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
39 (Pages 153 to 156)

153

1 Q. If we look at the synopsis, and can you

2 tell me if the synopsis is in any way not an

3 accurate reflection of the remainder of the

4 article? It says both the soil and the different

5 mold cultures reflected with very good agreement a

6 definite liberation of 14CO2 from the 14C labeled

7 polyethylene film, significantly above that

8 produced abiotically from aging samples. This is

9 interpreted as due to an enzymatic cleavage and

10 oxidative conversion of synthetic polymeric or

11 oligomeric alkanes with limited chain length,

12 accessible for biodegradation, right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. In your judgment did that 14C marker

15 provide definitive proof in this study of that

16 effect?

17 A. Of .5 percent in two years?

18 Q. Right. Of biodegradation.

19 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Do you mean to

20 completion?

21 Q. No. Of biodegradation.

22 A. Right. Again, as I stated earlier,

23 there's a distribution of molecular weight. There

24 probably is some low molecular weight that could

25 then be oxidized and then degraded to a very small

154

1 extent.

2 Q. That's your theory there. But that

3 theory isn't supported in the article itself, is

4 it?

5 MS. JOHNSON: If you need to read the

6 whole thing, feel free.

7 A. Yes. It says it is assumed that the

8 source of the carbon 14 metabolization in these

9 degradational experiments must have been mainly

10 low-molecular-weight polyethylene.

11 Q. Can you show me the page for that?

12 A. Sure. 3432.

13 Q. And where are you?

14 A. The last paragraph.

15 Q. However, that's not stated as a specific

16 test finding, correct? It is stated that -- to

17 read the entire sentence, it is assumed that the

18 source of 14C metabolization in these

19 degradational experiments must have been mainly

20 low-molecular-weight polyethylene. But this

21 conclusion must be corroborated by further study,

22 especially on material of a more accessible form,

23 for example, powder, possessing a high-surface

24 volume ratio compared with polyethylene film,

25 right? Would you agree with that?

155

1 A. I agree with the statement that it's

2 low-molecular-weight polyethylene.

3 Q. Would you agree that there needs to be a

4 caveat based on the study that this conclusion

5 must be corroborated by further study?

6 A. I mean, it's a reasonable conclusion.

7 Q. Now, I just want to see if you are

8 familiar with this next one, Exhibit 15, also by

9 Albertsson.

10 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

11 Exhibit No. 15, Biodegradation of Synthetic

12 Polymers. III. The Liberation of 14CO2 by Molds

13 Like Fusarium redolens from 14C Labeled Pulverized

14 High-Density Polyethylene, marked.)

15 BY MR. EMORD:

16 Q. Just take a moment and read the -- first

17 of all, did you see this article before you wrote

18 your expert report?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And are you familiar with its contents?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Just go ahead and take a moment to look

23 at the synopsis and then I'll ask you a question.

24 A. Okay.

25 Q. What is -- what do you understand the

156

1 proof to be, based on this article; what happened?

2 We have again 14C labeling. And what is the test

3 dealing with fungi and molds?

4 A. This time they looked at powders.

5 Q. And how did this test result differ from

6 the prior Albertsson study, 14?

7 A. They -- I think they got slightly higher

8 degradation.

9 Q. They also had a somewhat remarkable

10 finding in that there are two unidentified

11 bacteria strains as well as Acremonium kiliense,

12 Aspergillus versicolor and Verticillium lecanii

13 were all thriving on the sparse media and enhanced

14 to some extent the degradative CO2 liberation,

15 especially in mixed cultures together with F.

16 redolens. What is that all about?

17 A. Basically this was a similar finding to

18 the carbon 14 labeled polymeric alkane.

19 Q. So they found that there was degradation

20 taking place?

21 A. Yes. There's the low molecular weight.

22 Q. Further proof. In your own peer-reviewed

23 publications you explain the use of testing

24 methods as reviewing biodegradation that are other

25 than 14C, right?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
40 (Pages 157 to 160)

157

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you're a co-author of

3 Poly(b-hydroxybutyrate) Stereoisomers: A Model

4 Study of the Effects of Stereochemical and

5 Morphological Variables on Polymer Biological

6 Degradability, a 1992 article in Macromolecules.

7 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

8 Exhibit No. 16, Poly(b-hydroxybutyrate)

9 Stereoisomers: A Model Study of the Effects of

10 Stereochemical and Morphological Variables on

11 Polymer Biological Degradability, marked.)

12 BY MR. EMORD:

13 Q. We've listed this as Exhibit 16. Does

14 this refresh your recollection, having it before

15 you?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Looking at the third paragraph of that

18 article, beginning the susceptibility of bacterial

19 polyesters.

20 MS. JOHNSON: Where is this?

21 Q. The third paragraph, first page, under

22 introduction. The susceptibility of bacterial

23 polyesters to microbial degradation has been

24 demonstrated by various methods and by different

25 laboratories. Do you see that?

158

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. EMORD: Now, madam reporter, please

3 place in the transcript at this point in the

4 deposition the exact content of what we've marked

5 as Exhibit 16, paragraph 3, page 5927.

6 "The susceptibility of bacterial

7 polyesters to microbial degradation has been

8 demonstrated by various methods and by different

9 laboratories. Researchers at Imperial Chemical

10 Industries showed that natural origin PHB was

11 biodegradable in the soil, anaerobic and aerobic

12 sewage, seawater, and estuarine sediment.

13 Delafield et al. carried out the isolation of 16

14 strains of soil microorganisms which were capable

15 of growing under aerobic conditions with PHB as

16 the sole source of carbon. The bacterial strains

17 Pseudomonas lemoignei (ATCC 17989) and Alcaligenes

18 faecalis T1, isolated from soil and activated

19 sewage sludge, respectively, have been identified

20 as being capable of using PHB as an exogenous

21 source of carbon by excreting extracellular

22 enzymes that depolymerize it. In our laboratory,

23 we have successfully isolated and purified to

24 electrophoretic homogeneity a PHB depolymerase

25 exoenzyme from the fungus Penicillium funiculosum.

159

1 It has been determined that the protein has an

2 M value of 38,000. The enzyme has an isoelectric

3 point of 5.8, a pH optimum range of 5.5-6.2, and a

4 temperature optimum range of 30-35 degrees

5 Celsius. In-laboratory simulations of natural

6 environments have also been utilized in our

7 laboratories to demonstrate the degradability of

8 bacterial copolyesters. Since the kinetics of PHB

9 enzyme degradation with isolated enzymes such as

10 that from P. funiculosum may be much more rapid

11 than nonbiologically mediated chemical hydrolysis

12 (see above and corresponding references),

13 enzyme-mediated hydrolytic degradation events are

14 easily measured in the absence of appreciable

15 chemical hydrolysis of PHB."

16 When we look at that third paragraph and

17 the cited peer-reviewed journal articles which are

18 referenced within it, and it also has

19 corresponding references on page 5934, that's

20 where the references are, I would like you to tell

21 me whether any of the peer-reviewed articles

22 referenced for that paragraph involve, to your

23 knowledge, 14C radiological testing?

24 A. Any of these references?

25 Q. Right.

160

1 A. Let me just look for the name Albertsson.

2 I don't see any specifically.

3 Q. In this report on your testing of

4 degradability, the test you performed to determine

5 the effects of PHB stereochemistry and crystalline

6 morphology on enzymatic degradability did not use

7 14C, right?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. And in the summary and result section of

10 the article, on page 5933, in the second to the

11 last sentence you explain your assessment of

12 biodegradability based on the test you performed,

13 right?

14 A. The second to the last sentence on the

15 paper?

16 Q. Yes. It's above acknowledgment. The

17 relative degradability of these PHB stereoisomers

18 has interesting implications on the acceptability

19 of stereochemical sequences in the biodegradation

20 of PHB.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. There in the second sentence you

23 describe -- on 5933 -- it's actually under the

24 heading summary of results on 5933. There in that

25 second sentence you explain, the relative

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
41 (Pages 161 to 164)

161

1 degradability of these PHB stereoisomers was

2 studied with a PHB depolymerase enzyme isolated

3 form P. funiculosum. And then show me where in

4 the remainder of this you reach your conclusion as

5 to the degradation and then just describe for me

6 the conclusion.

7 A. The question is to --

8 Q. Here we have your results. I guess the

9 best way to do this is just to allow you to

10 explain to me the summary of the results, the

11 essential nature of the test, the summary of the

12 results that came from the test.

13 Perhaps another way of doing this is to

14 just ask you is there any aspect of this summary

15 that you find in any way in error, the summary of

16 the results, or is it in your view an accurate

17 reflection of the test and the results?

18 A. I believe it's an accurate reflection.

19 Q. Did you establish in this study that the

20 test article completely biodegrades in the

21 environment within one year of customary disposal?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Does a 14C radiological test reveal the

24 time period required for plastic decomposition?

25 A. In what way?

162

1 Q. I don't know. I'm asking you.

2 A. It could.

3 Q. It could?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Does a 14C radiological test reveal the

6 loss of properties in weight of a plastic

7 resulting from a biological process?

8 A. It could.

9 Q. Does a 14C radiological test reveal the

10 extent to which the decomposition process results

11 in the formation of toxic metabolic

12 intermediaries?

13 A. It could.

14 Q. Does a 14C radiological test reveal the

15 extent to which decomposition occurs with complete

16 mineralization of the plastic?

17 A. It could.

18 Q. Does a 14C radiological test reveal the

19 environmental exposure conditions required to

20 sustain biodegradation?

21 A. Say that again.

22 Q. Does a 14C radiological test reveal the

23 environmental exposure conditions required to

24 sustain biodegradation?

25 A. Not by itself.

163

1 Q. I'm going to give you another article.

2 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

3 Exhibit No. 17, A Respirometric Method to Measure

4 Mineralization of Polymeric Materials in a Matured

5 Compost Environment, marked.)

6 BY MR. EMORD:

7 Q. Let's take a moment to refresh your

8 recollection. This is one of your articles,

9 right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you recall whether in this article you

12 said that a single test method would not provide

13 all of the answers to the time period, loss of

14 properties and weight, formation of toxic

15 intermediaries, complete mineralization and

16 variable environmental exposure conditions. Take

17 a look at page 294.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. Now, is it your position in this article

20 that a single test method does not provide all the

21 answers to those questions you delineate in the

22 first full paragraph on page 294, and you

23 enumerated questions?

24 MS. JOHNSON: What was the question?

25 MR. EMORD: The question is whether it is

164

1 his position in this article that a single test

2 method would not provide all of the answers to the

3 questions that he specifies enumerated in the

4 first full paragraph on page 294.

5 A. It would not -- this could not be, that's

6 correct.

7 Q. That in fact stated there as the last

8 sentence, furthermore, a single test method will

9 not provide all of the answers to the questions

10 above.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. And you still stand by that view today?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Let's take a look at another of your

15 articles. This one is Exhibit 18.

16 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

17 Exhibit No. 18, Advances in Properties and

18 Biodegradability of Co-Continuous, Immicisible,

19 Biodegradable, Polymer Blends, marked.)

20 BY MR. EMORD:

21 Q. Now, in this study you measured soil

22 degradation rates of polylactic acid, right? It

23 looks like, and you can tell me, it looks like

24 this may have something to do with your patent.

25 Am I mistaken? By your patent I mean the U Mass

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
42 (Pages 165 to 168)

165

1 Lowell's patent based on your invention?

2 A. The question was?

3 Q. It looks like in this study you measured

4 soil degradation rates of polylactic acid, and is

5 this the study that is the principal study

6 underlying your '199 patent?

7 A. No.

8 Q. This is one in a series of them?

9 A. This is the biodegradability with the

10 proteinase K, the soil and the composting, for the

11 blends which are the basis of the patent that U

12 Mass owns.

13 Q. As I understand it, under this study you

14 base your determination of biodegradation

15 principally upon a measure of weight loss; is that

16 right?

17 A. I believe the Proteinase -- it's true for

18 the proteinase K and the composting. I don't

19 recall how we did it for the soil.

20 Q. If you look on page 72 under

21 biodegradability, the second paragraph. It looks

22 like the patent description in the '199 patent

23 with regard to biodegradation testing in the soil.

24 I'm going to have the court reporter put into the

25 transcript at this point the second full paragraph

166

1 under the title biodegradability on page 72 of

2 Exhibit 18 as a point of reference.

3 "The biodegradation testing in soil,

4 Figure 10, shoed the biodegradation rate of

5 Bio#3000 was extremely fast, while the rate of PLA

6 was relatively slow. After degrading for 45 days,

7 Bio#3000 degraded almost 100%, while PLA only

8 degraded about 14%. For the blends with 70 and 50

9 wt % Bio#3000, the degradation rate is relatively

10 fast. After 45 days, the A30/B70 blend degraded

11 about 77%, the A50/B50 blend degraded about 65%.

12 These values are equal to those expected on the

13 basis of additivity rule. However, for blends

14 with less than 30 wt% Bio#3000, the degradation

15 percentage values are less than those expected on

16 the basis of additivity rule."

17 Now, as I understand it from this study,

18 you did not use 14C radiological testing, right?

19 A. That is true.

20 Q. And I also do not see anywhere in here

21 reliance upon an ASTM standard test method?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Did you use your own laboratory test

24 method here?

25 A. It was the test method of the center.

167

1 I'm not sure there was an ASTM test method at that

2 time.

3 Q. What was the test method at the center?

4 A. There's three of them. One is the

5 compost; one is the enzymatic; and one is the

6 soil.

7 Q. You concluded that the biodegradation did

8 occur in the test sample plastic, and it is listed

9 there, is it not, in the second paragraph under

10 the title biodegradability on page 72, for each of

11 the blends and for the PLA?

12 A. So the question is the numbers are

13 listed?

14 Q. Right. Is that an accurate summarization

15 of the biodegradability or biodegradation results

16 of the study listed on page 72 in paragraph 2

17 under the title biodegradability?

18 A. Yes. That's what we found.

19 Q. And you stand by those test results

20 today?

21 A. Well, at the time, those were the best

22 results that we had. It would have been better to

23 do a measurement of carbon dioxide.

24 Q. But as for the tests that you did do,

25 they're satisfactory for establishing the

168

1 biodegradation of the test sample?

2 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

3 A. I mean, at the time -- I mean, they're

4 not the best tests. The weight loss is

5 problematic, as we later found out.

6 Q. Now, when it comes to proof in this

7 thing, you didn't prove that the test sample

8 plastic completely biodegrades within one year of

9 customary disposal, right?

10 A. Not with this test.

11 Q. Let's take a look at another one of your

12 articles. This one is Exhibit 19.

13 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

14 Exhibit No. 19, Biodegradable Polymer Blends of

15 Poly(lactic acid) and Poly(ethylene glycol),

16 marked.)

17 BY MR. EMORD:

18 Q. Now we've marked for identification an

19 article of Dr. McCarthy's as Respondent's Exhibit

20 19, Biodegradable Polymer Blends of Polylactic

21 Acid and Polyethylene Glycol. This is one of your

22 articles?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Part of the article explains an enzymatic

25 degradation test, right?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
43 (Pages 169 to 172)

169

1 A. Part of the material was exposed to an

2 enzyme.

3 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to

4 me that you measured enzymatic degradation on

5 pages 1500 and 1501 based on a weight loss

6 calculation; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you rely on any other measure for

9 determining the degradation in this study, other

10 than weight loss?

11 A. No.

12 Q. And you didn't use in this study an ASTM

13 standard; is that correct?

14 A. I don't think one existed at the time.

15 Q. And you didn't use 14C radiological

16 testing?

17 A. No.

18 Q. And let me ask you, do you extrapolate

19 from your lab tests to conclusions about the

20 actual environment in landfills?

21 A. Do I currently?

22 Q. Have you ever?

23 A. I don't know.

24 Q. You don't remember?

25 A. I don't remember.

170

1 Q. Let's take a look at another article

2 here. I'll mark this as Exhibit 20.

3 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

4 Exhibit No. 20, Degradation Ranking of Plastics in

5 a Landfill Environment, marked.)

6 BY MR. EMORD:

7 Q. This article is entitled Degradation

8 Ranking of Plastics in a Landfill Environment.

9 You appear to be one of the authors; is that

10 correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. If we look at page 867, and that's right

13 on the front there, in the second full paragraph,

14 you appear to define the purpose of the study,

15 right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you write, the purpose of this paper

18 is to compare on a relative scale the degradation

19 of various plastic materials in an accelerated

20 test which is correlatable to the actual

21 degradation in actual landfills, right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So it's fair to say from this study that

24 the accelerated control tests you performed in the

25 lab in this study you correlated to actual

171

1 landfill conditions in the outside world, right?

2 A. No. We didn't. We weren't able to. I

3 mean, we tried to. That was the purpose of it,

4 but it never happened.

5 Q. Now, in this study you didn't use 14C

6 radiological testing?

7 A. No.

8 Q. And what method did you use to measure

9 biodegradability?

10 A. It looks like weight loss.

11 Q. In the third full paragraph of the study

12 on the front, you write, in this preprint we

13 present preliminary results which correlate

14 plastics degradation with the biological

15 environment in the simulator, and provide

16 comparative rates for the degradation of plastics

17 and materials typically placed in landfills,

18 right?

19 A. Right.

20 Q. Are you extrapolating here from the lab

21 tests to the real world environment of landfills?

22 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

23 A. No.

24 Q. In the third paragraph, you describe the

25 method you used here, it's not 14C radiological

172

1 testing, to present it as a, quote, a methodology

2 for the routine analysis for plastics degradation

3 under leachate-recycled landfill conditions, end

4 quote. Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So you believe that that methodology, at

7 the time you wrote this article, you believed that

8 the methodology you used, is that a fair

9 statement, for the routine analysis for plastics

10 degradation under leachate-recycled landfill

11 conditions?

12 A. That was what we had hoped.

13 Q. But the method used you describe as the

14 routine analysis for plastic degradation?

15 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Asked and

16 answered.

17 Q. As routine?

18 A. No.

19 Q. At the time you wrote this, you didn't

20 believe it was routine?

21 A. No. We presented a methodology that we

22 had hoped could be used in routine analysis, and

23 ended up not being able to do it.

24 Q. Now, you also evaluated the appearance of

25 samples to determine if they looked weathered; is

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
44 (Pages 173 to 176)

173

1 that correct?

2 A. Do you know where that is?

3 Q. If you look under results and discussion,

4 the second full paragraph, cellophane and PHBV

5 appeared extensively weathered from exposures in

6 simulators G, E and H. Cellophane turned black

7 and disintegrated into small fragments; in fact,

8 none could be recovered from simulator G. PHBV

9 became brittle, opaque and extensively eroded on

10 the surface; only small remnants of PHBV could be

11 recovered after an exposure of 127 days. In all

12 simulators, polypropylene became discolored and

13 somewhat embrittled, but films showed no signs of

14 surface erosion.

15 A. This was the problem with the weight loss

16 is that they fragmented, and it was not accurate.

17 Q. Exhibit 10, page 293, if you look there

18 in the first paragraph, 293, it reads, there is

19 increased recognition that biodegradable plastics

20 can serve an important role in the design of an

21 intelligent, integrated solid waste disposal

22 scheme. Do you believe that statement to be true

23 when you made it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And is it true today?

174

1 A. I believe so.

2 Q. The same article on the same page, right

3 column, you write, biodegradable disposable4 plastic articles can be designed such that they

5 will be entirely converted by microbial activity

6 in a biologically active environment to biogas

7 (CO2 and CH4/CO2 under aerobic and anaerobic

8 conditions, respectively), biomass and biological

9 byproducts. Do you believe that statement to be

10 true when you made it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you believe it to be true today?

13 A. If I was to write it today, I would say

14 just use aerobic and add biomass.

15 Q. Now, two years after you wrote these

16 words, and two years later would be 1995, and you

17 wrote in another article,Laboratory-Scale

18 Composting Test Methods to Determine Polymer

19 Biodegradability: Model Studies on Cellulose

20 Acetate, which we will mark as Exhibit 21.

21 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

22 Exhibit No. 21, Laboratory-Scale Composting Test

23 Methods to Determine Polymer Biodegradability:

24 Model Studies on Cellulose Acetate, marked.)

25 BY MR. EMORD:

175

1 Q. Look at that. This is one of your

2 articles, right?

3 A. This is an article and I'm one of the

4 authors.

5 Q. If you'll look an page 614, the first

6 full paragraph under the title Introduction, there

7 is an increased recognition that biodegradable

8 plastics can serve an important role in the design

9 of an intelligent, integrated, solid waste

10 disposal scheme. When you wrote this article, did

11 you believe the statement to be true?

12 A. Well, this article was written by Rich

13 Gross.

14 Q. Do you don't take credit for that

15 statement?

16 A. I don't take credit for it. But I agree

17 with it.

18 Q. Is it true today?

19 A. I think so.

20 Q. Again, as you wrote in the prior article

21 and again write here in the next sentence, the

22 third sentence of the first paragraph under the

23 title Introduction, biodegradable

24 disposable-plastic articles can be designed such

25 that they will be entirely converted by microbial

176

1 activity in a biologically active environment to

2 biogas (CO2 and CH4/CO2 under aerobic and

3 anaerobic conditions, respectively), biomass, and

4 biological byproducts. That was what you wrote

5 then?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Was that statement correct when you wrote

8 it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And is it correct today?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, let's look at another article that

13 you wrote, and we'll mark it as Exhibit 22.

14 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

15 Exhibit No. 22, Reactive Compatibilization of

16 Biodegradable Blends of Poly(lactic acid) and

17 poly(e-caprolactone), marked.)

18 BY MR. EMORD:

19 Q. It's entitled Reactive Compatibilization

20 of Biodegradable Blends of Poly(lactic acid) and

21 poly(e-caprolactone). If you'll look at page 161

22 in the full sentence under the title Introduction

23 you write, PLA and PCL are well known

24 biodegradable polymers, right?

25 A. Yes.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
45 (Pages 177 to 180)

177

1 Q. And you stand by that statement today,

2 right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Before you wrote that statement, did you

5 establish that PLA and PCL plastics completely

6 break down and return to nature, that is,

7 decompose into elements found in nature within one

8 year after customary disposal?

9 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

10 A. Possibly. I possibly had seen studies

11 showing that.

12 Q. But you're not sure whether you have or

13 have not?

14 A. I mean, this was `98.

15 Q. Now, let's take a look at the next

16 article. Certainly nowhere in this article do you

17 refer to the biodegradation of PLA and PCL as

18 being the result of a complete breakdown and

19 return to nature of those elements and doing so

20 within one year, right?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Go ahead and take a look. If you find a

23 spot in there where you did say that, let me know.

24 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

25 Exhibit No. 23, Biodegradable Blends of Bacterial

178

1 Polyesters with Polyethylene and Polystyrene,

2 marked.)

3 BY MR. EMORD:

4 A. It doesn't appear to be in here.

5 Q. Let's take a look at this one, Number 23,

6 which appears to be another article in which

7 you're a co-author. This one is entitled

8 Biodegradable Blends of Bacterial Polyesters with

9 Polyethylene and Polystyrene. Here you identify

10 polyethylene and polystyrene polymer blends as

11 biodegradable, right?

12 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

13 A. Well, Bhalakla does.

14 Q. You were a co-author. You disagreed?

15 A. I wouldn't have characterized the blend

16 as biodegradable. I would have characterized the

17 PHB as biodegradable.

18 Q. Now, if you look at the first paragraph

19 it says, these polymers belong to a family of

20 microbially degradable thermoplastics which are

21 readily biosynthesized by a bacterial fermentation

22 process, right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you agree with that statement?

25 A. It's referring to the PHB proponents,

179

1 yes.

2 Q. You do. Okay. Before you wrote that

3 statement did you establish that the polyethylene

4 and polystyrene blend completely break down and

5 return to nature, that is, decompose into elements

6 found in nature within one year after customary

7 disposal?

8 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

9 A. I didn't write this.

10 Q. Did anyone who was involved with the

11 writing of this, to your knowledge, establish that

12 the polyethylene and polystyrene blends completely

13 break down and return to nature within one year

14 after customary disposal?

15 A. I don't think so.

16 Q. If we look at Exhibit 24.

17 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

18 Exhibit No. 24, The Effect of Hyperbranched

19 Polymers on Processing and Thermal Stability of

20 Biodegradable Polyesters, marked.)

21 BY MR. EMORD:

22 Q. Now, this is entitled The Effect of

23 Hyperbranched Polymers on Processing and Thermal

24 Stability of Biodegradable Polyesters. You're one

25 of the co-authors?

180

1 A. Right.

2 Q. You identified poly-hydroxy-butyrate in

3 the left column, end of the first paragraph, under

4 the title Introduction, as fully biodegradable,

5 right?

6 A. That's right.

7 Q. And do you stand by that statement today,

8 that it is fully biodegradable?

9 A. Under certain disposal methods.

10 Q. Now, before this statement of it being

11 fully biodegradable, it is contained in the last

12 full sentence of the first full paragraph under

13 the title Introduction, did you establish that

14 poly-hydroxy-butyrate completely breaks down and

15 returns to nature, that is, decomposing into

16 elements found in nature within one year after

17 customary disposal?

18 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

19 A. I believe that was demonstrated.

20 Q. Was it demonstrated in the context of

21 this article?

22 A. I don't believe so.

23 Q. Did any of the authors in this article

24 recite that they had determined that existence of

25 biodegradation predicated upon establishment that

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
46 (Pages 181 to 184)

181

1 the poly-hydroxy-butyrate completely broke down

2 and returned to nature decomposing into elements

3 found in nature within one year after customary

4 disposal?

5 A. No.

6 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

7 Exhibit No. 25, Biodegradation of

8 Natural/Syndiotactic Poly(3-hydroxybutrate)

9 Blends, marked.)

10 BY MR. EMORD:

11 Q. This is entitled Biodegradation of

12 Natural/Syndiotactic Poly(3-hydroxybutrate)

13 Blends. Here you identified P3HB in the first

14 paragraph as a biodegradable material, right?

15 A. This is the polymer preprint again.

16 That's not peer-reviewed that's written by this

17 student. But I agree with that.

18 Q. It's identified as such in the first

19 paragraph, right, as a biodegradable material?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you stand by that identification that

22 P3HB is a biodegradable material?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Is it anywhere referenced in this article

25 that P3HB completely breaks down and returns to

182

1 nature, that is, decomposes into elements found in

2 nature within one year after customary disposal?

3 A. The reference would be it does -- if it

4 does state it, it would be reference to it.

5 Q. So it might be in the reference; there

6 might be information germane to that point in

7 reference?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. But you're not sure, or are you sure?

10 A. It says that it mineralizes. The

11 question is one year.

12 Q. Right. One year. So you think that

13 reference to establish is that it occurs within

14 one year?

15 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

16 Mischaracterizes his testimony.

17 Q. Go ahead and explain.

18 A. I think it could. I just don't know.

19 Q. But there's no reference in the article

20 itself to a standard that would indicate that the

21 P3HB completely breaks down and returns to nature,

22 decomposes into elements found in nature within

23 one year after customary disposal?

24 A. It could be in number 2.

25 Q. Other than number 2, there's no express

183

1 reference in the article?

2 A. Right.

3 MR. EMORD: Now this one is 26.

4 (Whereupon, Respondent's Deposition

5 Exhibit No. 26, Microwave-Assisted Solvent-Free or

6 Aqueous-Based Synthesis of Biodegradable Polymers,

7 marked.)

8 BY MR. EMORD:

9 Q. This one is entitled,Microwave-Assisted

10 Solvent-Free or Aqueous-Based Synthesis of

11 Biodegradable Polymers.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. This is another of your articles?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you write here polysaccharides

16 themselves are inherently biodegradable, right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you stand by that statement today,

19 right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, I don't find any reference in here

22 to an assessment that would find that

23 polysaccharides completely break down and return

24 to nature as decomposing elements found in nature

25 within one year after customary disposal. Does

184

1 such a determination exist in the article?

2 A. Polysaccharides are found in nature.

3 Q. Is there such a determination, in other

4 words, in the use of the term biodegradable in the

5 article, is it defined anywhere in here as

6 requiring satisfaction of those two elements?

7 A. Because polysaccharides are found in

8 nature, they would in fact be elements found in

9 nature immediately.

10 Q. So that's why you say it's inherently

11 biodegradable, because it's already found in

12 nature and it doesn't really have to degrade; it's

13 already in a state of degradation?

14 A. No. It does degrade.

15 Q. If it does degrade, is it the case that

16 in this article there has been established or

17 written here the point that it would degrade

18 necessarily and return to elements, break

19 completely down and turn to elements in nature?

20 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

21 Q. Or do you consider polysaccharides

22 themselves to be an element in nature?

23 A. Well, the degradation of polysaccharides

24 occurs in nature. So any biodegradation -- the

25 biodegradation of products would be found in

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
47 (Pages 185 to 188)

185

1 nature.

2 Q. How about the polyesters, with respect to

3 biodegradation of the polymers that are referenced

4 in this article, does it establish that those

5 polymers would biodegrade such that they would

6 break down and return to nature decomposing into

7 elements found in nature within one year after

8 customary disposal?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Now, does all paper completely break down

11 and return to nature, that is, decompose into

12 elements found in nature within one year after

13 customary disposal, all paper products?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Does a banana peel?

16 A. Does a banana peel --

17 Q. Does it completely break down and return

18 to nature, that is, decompose into elements found

19 in nature within one year after customary

20 disposal?

21 A. I'm not sure.

22 Q. If it didn't within a year, would it

23 still be biodegradable?

24 A. There would probably be some conditions

25 where it would degrade within one year.

186

1 Q. But assuming that a part of the banana

2 peel doesn't biodegrade within a year or that the

3 whole banana peel didn't biodegrade within a year

4 but it biodegraded two years later, would that in

5 your judgment exclude it from being appropriately

6 considered biodegradable?

7 A. Well, it would exclude it from being

8 claimed as biodegradable within a year.

9 Q. I'm asking not about claims. I'm asking

10 just as a scientist. Would you consider a banana

11 peel not to be biodegradable?

12 A. I don't know. I don't know whether it

13 degrades completely.

14 Q. Would you consider a tree trunk to be

15 biodegradable?

16 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

17 Q. Is a tree trunk biodegradable?

18 A. I would consider it biodegradable.

19 Q. Does a tree trunk completely degrade in

20 nature within one year of customary disposal?

21 A. If it's sliced thin enough.

22 Q. So if it falls in the woods and it isn't

23 sliced, it's not biodegradable because it might

24 not biodegrade within one year?

25 A. Again, it would biodegrade within the

187

1 year if you sliced it.

2 Q. Say you don't slice it. A tree falls in

3 the woods, is it biodegradable?

4 A. Yes, it's biodegradable.

5 Q. Even if it doesn't completely return to

6 elements found in nature within one year?

7 A. Right.

8 Q. Is an orange peel biodegradable?

9 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. How many more

10 of these do we have to go through?

11 Q. Is an orange peel biodegradable?

12 A. I think so.

13 Q. Even if it doesn't biodegrade within one

14 year?

15 A. I think it could be sliced thin enough so

16 it would.

17 Q. Is there a difference between

18 verification and validation?

19 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Vague.

20 A. Yes, there is.

21 Q. What is the difference?

22 A. So validation is the validity of the

23 test.

24 Q. And verification is?

25 A. And I think verification is that the

188

1 material passes.

2 Q. Do you know whether the EPA and the

3 United States Department of Defense use validation

4 rather than verification when conditions in the

5 field and in the lab are complex and

6 heterogeneous?

7 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

8 A. I do not know.

9 Q. Have you read the Guidance on

10 Environmental Data Verification and Data

11 Validation, EPA document?

12 A. I don't believe so.

13 Q. And have you read the U.S. Army Corps of

14 Engineers Guidance for Evaluating Performance15 Based Chemical Data?

16 A. I don't believe so.

17 Q. Now, your report states that you reviewed

18 all the tests conducted by the independent labs on

19 ECM plastics, right?

20 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

21 A. I reviewed all of the data that was

22 supplied to me by complaint counsel.

23 Q. Did that data include Eden Labs and

24 Northeast Labs test results?

25 A. Yes.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
48 (Pages 189 to 192)

189

1 Q. You reviewed those Eden lab tests and

2 those Northeast lab tests?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did you run any statistics for the D5511

5 test of Eden Labs and Northeast Labs?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You were provided the raw data from the

8 Eden Labs and Northeast Labs tests?

9 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. Assumes facts

10 not evidence in that there is no raw data for the

11 Eden Labs.

12 Q. Did you receive any raw data for the Eden

13 Labs and the Northeast Labs tests?

14 A. I did not receive raw data from Eden

15 Labs.

16 Q. You didn't get any raw data supplied to

17 you by complaint counsel?

18 A. I did not.

19 MS. JOHNSON: If you have raw data,

20 please share it with us, because we didn't receive

21 any.

22 Q. So this probably goes without saying, but

23 you didn't calculate mean CO2 in milliliters for

24 the substrate in those tests?

25 A. I have not.

190

1 Q. Or the mean CH4 in milliliters for the

2 inoculum?

3 A. I have not.

4 Q. Or the mean CO2 and the milliliter for

5 the inoculum?

6 A. I have not.

7 Q. You didn't calculate the ratio of the

8 mean methane yield of the substrate to the mean

9 inoculum yield?

10 A. Calculate the mean?

11 Q. The mean methane yield of the substrate

12 to the mean inoculum yield?

13 MS. JOHNSON: Objection. What substrate?

14 A. Yes. What substrate?

15 Q. What substrate? I don't know. Now, but

16 basically you didn't do any calculations, because

17 you didn't have the raw data. You weren't

18 supplied with the raw data so you didn't do any

19 calculation.

20 A. I wasn't supplied with the raw data from

21 Eden.

22 Q. Were you supplied with raw data from

23 Northeast Labs?

24 A. There was sort of raw data that was not

25 the real raw data. It was numbers that I guess

191

1 were like average. So there were a lot of the

2 same number in most of the tests. So it wasn't

3 the real raw data.

4 Q. Now, I think you said you weren't a

5 biochemist, so if this is outside of your area,

6 you can say, but can you name for me each of the

7 species of microbial life that dwell in a

8 landfill?

9 A. No.

10 Q. And could you explain the life cycle of

11 those critters in the landfill?

12 A. No.

13 Q. You couldn't explain how they reproduce

14 and feed and colonize and that sort of thing?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Can you explain for me what stimulates

17 microbial life forms to produce enzymes?

18 A. It would be the food source.

19 Q. Is that the only thing that would

20 stimulate them to --

21 A. I'm not sure.

22 Q. That's outside of your area?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Is a biological -- is a biodegradation

25 test finding that is stated as no conclusion can

192

1 be drawn the same as a finding that no

2 biodegradation was observed?

3 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

4 Q. Is it the same?

5 A. I'm not sure of the context.

6 Q. Right. If you were to read within a

7 study test a finding that stated no conclusion can

8 be drawn, would that be the same in your mind as a

9 finding that no biodegradation was observed?

10 A. I can see instances where it could be the

11 same.

12 Q. And you can see instances when it would

13 not be the same?

14 A. Probably.

15 Q. Is a biodegradation test finding that no

16 statistically significant biodegradation was found

17 the same as a finding of no biodegradation?

18 MS. JOHNSON: Objection.

19 A. I could see cases where they would be the

20 same.

21 Q. And you can see cases when they would not

22 be the same?

23 A. Yes.

24 MS. JOHNSON: Are we talking about

25 specific tests?

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
49 (Pages 193 to 196)

193

1 MR. EMORD: I have no further questions.

2 MS. JOHNSON: Let's just take a couple3 minute break.

4 (Recess.)

5 EXAMINATION BY MS. JOHNSON:

6 Q. Dr. McCarthy, when were you retained?

7 A. Over two years ago.

8 Q. In that time, what volume of information

9 have you reviewed, would you say?

10 A. Monstrous.

11 Q. And so is it possible that some of the

12 articles that have been placed before you today as

13 exhibits you may have reviewed before you prepared

14 your expert report in this case?

15 A. Definitely.

16 MS. JOHNSON: No further questions.

17 (Proceedings concluded at 3:15 p.m.)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

194

1 CERTIFICATION OF REPORTER

2 DOCKET/FILE NUMBER: 9358

3 CASE TITLE: ECM BioFilms, Inc.

4 DEPOSITION DATE: June 27, 2014

5

6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the transcript

7 Contained herein is a full and accurate transcript

8 of the notes taken by me at the hearing on the

9 above cause before the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION to

10 the best of my knowledge and belief.

11

12 DATED: 7-7-14

13

14 ____________________________

15 Linda A. Crockett

16

17 C E R T I F I C A T E O F P R O O F R E A D E R

18

19 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I proofread the

20 transcript for accuracy in spelling, hyphenation,

21 punctuation and format.

22

23 _______________________________

24 Edward Grandes

25

195

1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT

2

3 I hereby certify that I have read and

4 examined the foregoing transcript, and the same is

5 a true and accurate record of the testimony given

6 by me.

7 Any additions or corrections that I feel

8 are necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet

9 of paper to the original transcript.

10

11

12 _______________________

13 Stephen McCarthy, Ph.D.

14

15

16 I hereby certify that the individual

17 representing himself/herself to be the above-named

18 individual, appeared before me this_________ day

19 of __________________,_________, and executed the

20 above certificate in my presence.

21

22 ________________________

23 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR _____________________

24

25 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:__________________

196

1 WITNESS: STEPHEN McCARTHY, Ph.D.

2 DATE: JUNE 27, 2014

3 CASE: ECM BIOFILMS, INC.

4

5 Please note any errors and the corrections

6 thereof on this errata sheet. The rules require a

7 reason for any change or correction. It may be

8 general, such as "to correct stenographic error,"

9 or "to clarify the record," or "to conform with

10 the facts."

11

12 Page | Line | Correction & Reason for Change

13 ______|______|__________________________________

14 ______|______|__________________________________

15 ______|______|__________________________________

16 ______|______|__________________________________

17 ______|______|__________________________________

18 ______|______|__________________________________

19 ______|______|__________________________________

20 ______|______|__________________________________

21 ______|______|__________________________________

22 ______|______|__________________________________

23 ______|______|__________________________________

24 ______|______|__________________________________

25 ______|______|__________________________________

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

[197]

A

abbreviation 42:23

ability 7:2

abiotic 40:24 41:9

103:24 104:12,15

104:20 105:2,3,4,6

105:20,23 133:23

134:1 135:13

abiotically 104:9

153:8

able 54:13 91:5

143:6 146:23

148:17 171:2

172:23

above-entitled 3:14

above-named

195:17

absence 84:12

159:14

absent 90:8,12,13

149:2

abstract 122:25

124:10

Academic 16:15

accelerated 170:19

170:24

acceptability 160:18

accepted 38:22,25

42:3 116:18 117:2

access 58:25

accessible 153:12

154:22

account 53:15,16,17

53:20,22,23 54:3,6

54:10 55:1

accumulating

130:19,22 133:15

133:18

accuracy 95:10

194:20

accurate 46:11,14

49:2,7 50:15 71:8

71:11 73:9,14

94:20 153:3

161:16,18 167:14

173:16 194:7

195:5

Acetate 2:11 174:20

174:24

achieve 54:20

acid 2:8,13 31:19,24

32:6 65:14 72:10

72:22 75:23,25

77:20 78:11,23

79:21 83:5,11,21

136:8,12 164:22

165:4 168:15,21

176:16,20

acid-based 72:19

77:13

acknowledgment

160:16

acquire 111:11

Acremonium

156:11

ACS 128:23

act 131:1 134:5

action 40:21 67:18

activated 158:18

active 109:10 174:6

176:1

activity 174:5 176:1

actual 169:20

170:20,21,25

add 85:7 90:18

174:14

added 70:25 71:4,5

71:19 139:22

addition 58:21

83:13

additions 195:7

additive 43:10 70:8

70:20,24 71:4,19

71:23 90:18 149:5

additives 69:25 70:4

111:14,18,23

112:2,5,8,10,13

139:21 148:22

additivity 166:13,16

adhere 101:8

adheres 130:14

132:5

adipate 145:5

adopted 40:15

advancement 123:2

Advances 2:5 147:6

164:17

advertising 64:16

advisory 96:21,25

aerobic 41:9 91:1,2

91:20 139:11

158:11,15 174:7

174:14 176:2

affect 6:20,23 7:1

55:10

affirmative 120:3,9

affirmatively

120:20

affordable 150:2

aging 153:8

ago 45:1 55:17

97:25 193:7

agree 19:23,24

20:10 123:18

127:13,22 128:7

128:10 131:20

132:7,10 134:7,10

140:5,21 141:13

144:14 145:18,24

154:25 155:1,3

175:16 178:24

181:17

agreement 58:3,9,12

58:13 59:6 153:5

Agricultural 128:22

ahead 23:5 70:15

94:23 102:5 127:8

155:22 177:22

182:17

aided 41:9

aids 111:15,18,23

112:1,5,14

Aiken 51:11

air 99:20

al 147:4,23 158:13

Albertsson 40:19

121:20 151:24

155:9 156:6 160:1

Alcaligenes 158:17

alcohol 136:14

aliphatic 72:21,24

83:13 124:7 145:8

149:16 150:1

alkane 156:18

alkanes 153:11

allow 161:9

allowed 56:19

alter 41:1,21

alteration 118:4

Altogether 60:13

amendments 92:11

American 128:24

amount 52:25 65:4

87:17

amounts 148:5

amylose 32:11

anaerobic 41:9

139:12 158:11

174:7 176:3

analysis 21:11 32:22

104:1 124:3 132:2

172:2,9,14,22

Andrady 106:19

and/or 40:21 105:20

annual 45:21 48:15

48:20

annually 62:24

Ann-Christine

121:19

anoxic 139:13

answer 6:8,14 7:19

7:25 8:1,4 9:20

11:6 15:9 19:13

21:18 31:22 52:16

85:15 112:19

148:12

answered 19:21

31:17 68:5 85:14

105:9 120:22

172:16

answering 85:6

answers 163:13,21

164:2,9

ANTEC 42:17

Anterios 108:21

110:4

antioxidants 139:21

anymore 110:9

anyway 120:14

apparently 94:24

appear 9:3 39:22

170:9,14 178:4

appearance 172:24

appearances 4:1

5:11

appeared 8:11

173:5 195:18

appearing 7:11 26:6

appears 18:23 21:16

178:6

appended 23:18

appendix 108:17

applicable 136:16

application 40:12

applications 82:12

111:21

applied 53:3

apply 136:6

appreciable 159:14

appreciate 18:2

46:22 148:18

appropriate 102:7

104:24

appropriately 186:5

approval 39:23

approved 39:19

41:17 90:8,13

149:2

approximately 5:21

37:23 51:22 60:16

61:5,7 62:2

approximation

45:24

Aqueous-Based

2:19 183:6,10

area 40:13 82:9

120:4 141:1 191:5

191:22

areas 54:20 147:25

Army 188:13

aromatic 73:20,22

145:8

arrangement 43:22

array 66:2,7

article 1:15 29:12,21

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[198]

30:5 34:14,17,24

39:4,11,12 41:17

42:13 94:16 95:21

104:18,23 106:15

110:7 113:8

115:21 116:4,6,13

117:1,9,14,19,23

117:24 121:6

122:6,9,18 123:11

123:19,23 126:18

127:9,15,17 130:3

137:25 146:9,15

146:19,21 147:3,9

147:13,22 149:11

150:5,10,17 151:4

151:25 152:10

153:4 154:3

155:17 156:1

157:6,18 160:10

161:20 163:1,11

163:19 164:1

168:19,24 170:1,7

172:7 174:2 175:3

175:10,12,20

176:12 177:16,16

178:6 180:21,23

181:24 182:19

183:1 184:1,5,16

185:4

articles 47:16 105:1

114:17 127:18

146:4 159:17,21

163:8 164:15

168:12,22 174:4

175:2,24 183:13

193:12

article,Laborator...

174:17

articulated 129:10

Arutchelvi 137:13

ASF 63:14

Aside 112:10

asked 10:4 11:11,25

12:5,21 15:5 19:20

21:1,13 22:19

25:19 27:18 31:16

46:20 68:4 100:18

105:8 120:21

145:14 172:15

asking 22:24 29:19

35:3 42:5 84:10

162:1 186:9,9

aspect 123:24

127:25 161:14

aspects 129:13

Aspergillus 156:12

assessment 160:11

183:22

assign 52:12

assigned 57:21,23

59:13

assignee 57:19,20,21

assignment 58:17

59:5

assimilated 139:10

associate 54:18 55:5

associated 1:18

12:17 40:22 64:8

65:6 93:5,8 126:18

127:5

Associates 4:12

association 24:13

47:23 99:11

assume 21:1 27:19

assumed 154:7,17

assumes 48:4 72:2

189:9

assuming 29:5

101:15 186:1

assumption 28:6

115:19

ASTM 35:22 36:5

36:10 88:18,22

90:3,3,3,8,13

149:2 166:21

167:1 169:12

ATCC 158:17

attach 138:17

140:19,23 195:8

attached 1:8 15:13

15:18 106:9

138:25 142:17

Attachment 138:11

attack 70:23 71:19

attention 72:25

126:23

attorney 67:1

attractive 130:11

131:18

author 34:11 42:4,5

117:21,24 123:18

authority 54:2

authorized 93:23

authors 41:13,20

42:8 151:7 170:9

175:4 180:23

available 66:10

Avenue 4:6

average 98:9 191:1

avoidance 6:5

aware 29:19 58:15

104:17,18 114:6

129:25 149:10

150:5

Azdel 71:15

A-R-U-T-C-H-E-...

137:13

a.m 3:16

A1 111:7

A30B70 83:8

A30/B70 166:10

A50B50 83:8

A50/B50 166:11

A70B30 83:9

B

back 25:21 37:6,25

38:21,23 42:4 45:9

60:1 69:13 74:10

77:1 79:2 82:23

108:15 151:2

background 40:16

47:13

bacteria 130:17,19

132:18 133:15

156:11

bacterial 2:14 131:1

134:5 157:18,22

158:6,16 159:8

177:25 178:8,21

bags 64:4 65:20,25

65:25 66:1 82:15

banana 185:15,16

186:1,3,10

base 128:20 165:14

based 33:5 39:2,21

41:19 54:15 65:12

79:5 83:17 155:4

156:1 160:12

165:1 169:5

188:15

bases 8:3

basically 104:8

125:7 146:22

156:17 190:16

basis 8:2 10:21 28:2

119:16,23 165:11

166:13,16

Bates 50:8

becoming 99:3

beginning 31:22

140:19 157:18

begins 78:15 82:25

behalf 4:3,10 7:12

8:10 13:6

belief 194:10

believe 8:18 11:19

12:11 14:3 16:4

26:11 34:15 37:19

47:2 49:9 63:24

64:3 67:19,25

68:23 69:18,23

70:12 75:25 76:8,9

85:18 93:25 96:2

96:23 97:25 98:23

108:4,8 116:10,14

122:3,7 126:20

129:24 137:3

144:11 147:7

148:8 161:18

165:17 172:6,20

173:22 174:1,9,12

175:11 180:19,22

188:12,16

believed 149:18

172:7

belong 178:19

benzene 149:19,22

149:23

BEPS 99:24 100:6

100:10,16

best 19:9 20:18

38:18 59:6 77:25

161:9 167:21

168:4 194:10

beta-propiolactone

145:6

better 72:9 167:22

Bhalakla 178:13

Bhardwaj 126:17

131:14

bias 89:12,14

biochemical 18:13

biochemist 16:5

141:3 191:5

biochemistry 47:13

120:5 146:13

biodegradability

1:17 2:6,11 9:14

10:13,19,24 11:15

11:17 12:9 42:14

70:6 74:12 114:18

114:22 115:25

160:12 164:18

165:9,21 166:1

167:10,15,17

171:9 174:19,23

biodegradable 1:10

2:7,7,12,14,17,20

8:25 9:15 10:14,20

11:16 14:15 21:3,9

21:14,16 22:6,15

22:20 23:1 24:24

25:6,15 26:5 27:6

27:20 28:7,14,23

29:8,15,24 30:8

32:20 33:1,4,8,25

34:10,17,18,25

35:6,12,22 36:17

36:24 39:7 43:3,7

43:8,12,14 46:17

47:1 48:16 49:3

51:24 63:22 64:9

64:23 65:18,24

66:6 69:16,20 70:5

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[199]

71:5,10,24 72:12

74:4 75:17 77:12

77:20 78:7,10,12

79:7,22 80:8,24

84:19 85:24 90:19

92:10,15 93:1,2,4

94:6 100:1,4

107:16 109:14

110:10,13,18

111:6 112:25

113:6,21 114:8,10

115:15 118:1,3

120:14 121:14,17

123:3 125:13

129:19 136:4

145:24 158:11

164:19 168:14,20

173:19 174:3

175:7,23 176:16

176:20,24 177:25

178:8,11,16,17

179:20,24 180:4,8

180:11 181:14,19

181:22 183:6,11

183:16 184:4,11

185:23 186:6,8,11

186:15,17,18,23

187:3,4,8,11

biodegradable/co...

66:5

biodegradation 1:18

1:19,20,23 2:17

14:8 24:8,13 25:6

25:15 26:5 27:7

40:1,6,8,12,20

41:2,3,14,22 42:9

70:1 75:6,19 80:18

81:6 82:21 83:14

84:5,13 86:4,6,19

91:1,2,21 92:15

103:6,8,16,20,24

104:3,10,13,16,20

105:4,7,10,12

106:6,16,18,23

107:1 115:18

117:11 122:2,16

123:4 127:13,19

128:2,23 130:5,8

130:10 131:11

135:5 137:22

138:4,7,8,9 139:24

140:3,6 145:17

147:24 148:23

149:13,18 150:7

152:4 153:12,18

153:21 155:11

156:24 160:19

162:20,24 165:14

165:23 166:3,4

167:7,15 168:1

177:17 180:25

181:7,11 184:24

184:25 185:3

191:24 192:2,9,15

192:16,17

biodegrade 25:7,16

26:5 27:6 75:20

76:7,16,20 77:7

92:22 115:2,6

117:16 119:10

147:1,19,21 148:7

148:11,12 185:5

186:2,3,24,25

187:13

biodegraded 28:25

83:21 186:4

biodegrades 78:23

83:12,16 151:19

151:21 161:20

168:8

biodegrading

118:21 119:5

149:6

BioEnvironmental

99:25

BioFilms 3:3 4:10

5:8,15 66:23 68:2

68:10,13 194:3

196:3

biogas 174:6 176:2

Biogradable 1:12,13

46:7 49:16

biogradable/comp...

66:4

biological 2:3 131:9

135:9 146:10

147:4,16 157:5,11

162:7 171:14

174:8 176:4

191:24

biologically 174:6

176:1

biomass 31:12,12

139:11,15 174:8

174:14 176:3

biomedical 40:13

Bionolle 76:3,12,23

76:25 84:2,24 85:1

Bionolle#3000 83:2

83:7,14

bioplastics 44:2,4,9

44:13,15,18,20

45:17 95:2

bioresorbable 108:6

biosynthesized

178:21

Biotech 8:18 9:1

11:14 13:3,7,20

14:24

Biotechnology

147:5 148:1

biotic 103:23 134:1

134:2 135:13

Bio#3000 166:5,7,9

166:14

bit 30:19 37:6 69:13

74:10 77:2

black 173:6

blend 72:11 74:13

76:13 77:12,20

78:10,11 92:11

166:10,11 178:15

179:4

blended 70:23 78:10

blends 2:7,7,12,14

2:18 42:15 73:12

73:15 74:13,13

75:11 77:1,2,5

78:4 79:23,24,25

80:13,14 83:6,9

164:19 165:11

166:8,13 167:11

168:14,20 176:16

176:20 177:25

178:8,10 179:12

181:9,13

block 108:23 109:1

board 96:22,25

bonding 109:15

bone 109:15 111:6

book 33:25 34:9,17

34:24 35:2 106:19

books 35:4

Botox 109:12

bottom 82:18

bought 152:16

BPI 93:14,21 94:9

96:3,18 97:2,5,8

98:2,4 99:3,5,8,16

99:17 100:6,20,21

100:25

BPI's 96:21

break 6:11,15 21:4

24:19 25:10,20,21

25:23 26:18 28:8

31:11,15,24 32:4,7

33:14,15 36:6

69:17,21 70:9

75:11 82:13 177:6

179:4,13 183:23

184:18 185:6,10

185:17 193:3

breakdown 24:23

33:10 41:23 42:10

59:20 177:18

breaking 103:8

breaks 28:13 29:14

29:22 30:7,13,23

30:25 31:7 82:10

180:14 181:25

182:21

Brian 67:1,4,16

94:25

bring 53:21

bringing 52:7

brings 52:11

brittle 173:9

broadly 66:19

broke 181:1

brought 55:9

Buchanan 151:8,13

budget 45:21 48:15

48:20

bunch 144:24

business 8:24

butyrate 74:7

buy 65:20

byproducts 174:9

176:4

B-H-A-R-D-W-A-J

126:17

B-U-C-H-A-N-A-N

151:9

C

C 5:1 144:8 148:19

149:12 150:6,11

194:17,17

cabined 134:11

calculate 189:23

190:7,10

calculation 169:6

190:19

calculations 190:16

call 105:5

called 7:16 33:25

34:9 99:22

calling 105:3

capable 118:21

119:5 158:14,20

car 14:13

carbon 91:9,23

101:14 102:11,16

121:21 130:18,21

131:1,5 133:14,17

134:6,23 138:14

139:1,8 142:18

148:25 152:16,18

152:18,21 154:8

156:18 158:16,21

167:23

carried 158:13

carrier 14:20

case 8:10 10:15,21

10:24 11:5,14,18

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[200]

11:21 12:3,8,13,14

12:17,21 14:11,14

15:8 16:24 21:22

21:25,25 22:8,9,21

22:22,23,25 66:22

66:24 70:18 79:11

122:6,10 184:15

193:14 194:3

196:3

cases 9:6,10 13:7

14:22 22:17 54:4

62:2,3,4 192:19,21

Catalysts 146:12

catalyze 135:25

catalyzes 130:15

132:6

category 112:21

125:17

cause 70:1 101:9

137:7 148:23

194:9

caused 70:8

causes 43:11

caveat 25:8,9 155:4

cellophane 173:4,6

Cellulose 2:11

174:19,24

Celsius 159:5

censor 105:1

center 1:11,13 3:10

44:3,5,9,9,13,14

44:16,19 45:6,22

46:6,12,16,17,18

46:19 47:1,3 48:16

49:4,15 50:16,21

50:24 52:18 61:6

62:16,21 69:1,3,4

69:6,15,25 74:19

94:13 98:25

166:25 167:3

certain 180:9

certainly 6:18

177:16

certificate 195:1,20

certification 93:6,19

93:22,24 94:1,3

97:9,15 98:2,8,11

99:3 194:1

certified 93:11,19

94:10

certify 97:19 194:6

194:19 195:3,16

chain 33:11 101:10

102:10,13 103:12

105:16,21 107:19

139:2 143:17,21

143:24,25 144:5

153:11

chains 105:13

130:24 134:4

148:16

challenge 60:19

challenging 129:1

chance 16:21

change 28:3 37:24

51:7 95:9 196:7,12

changed 41:15

50:21 51:1 69:4

changes 42:1,6

chapter 1:9 33:24

34:2,10,17

characterization

17:3,5 82:4 135:14

characterize 104:12

characterized

178:15,16

Charles 151:8,13

chart 131:13

check 43:4 146:6

chemical 40:22 41:5

41:10 91:6,16,19

91:21 101:18,18

101:19,25 102:1,8

102:20,21 104:8

128:24 135:23

138:20 141:9

158:9 159:11,15

188:15

chemicals 103:13

chemist 16:7,10

chemistry 16:8,13

16:14,19 17:12,14

17:17,22 47:15

child's 14:13

choices 64:24 65:4

choose 66:2,8 102:3

chose 61:3

CH2 138:19 141:8

CH4 41:7 91:8,9,23

131:6 139:14

190:1

CH4/CO2 174:7

176:2

circumstance

135:12

citation 106:11

113:1 116:22

118:23 119:2

150:14

cite 22:25 29:11,20

30:4 31:5 106:4

113:3 116:25

141:24

cited 159:17

cites 134:18 144:7

citing 124:2

claim 10:10 21:2

22:4 27:19 29:17

33:2,6 75:17 77:10

77:19 80:5 149:4,6

claimant 149:6

claimed 73:16 186:8

claiming 80:1

claims 67:17 68:2

73:10 80:12 186:9

clarify 196:9

classes 125:4,5

clean-up 88:1

cleavage 102:9,12

105:21 130:16

132:6,9 143:24

153:9

cleavages 101:5,5,11

101:13

cleave 144:5 146:24

cleaves 139:2

143:17,21,25

clerk 13:14

Clifton 4:14

close 45:24 48:24

Closer 60:12

code 79:14

cognitive 6:20,23

collaboration 47:11

collaborative 19:14

19:22 20:15

colleague 47:4,5

colonies 18:10

colonize 191:14

column 40:2 73:3,18

74:20 78:14 82:24

86:10 174:3 180:3

combination 88:8

combining 128:1

combustibility 30:2

come 38:21 126:22

comes 128:6 168:6

comfortable 141:5

comments 100:21

100:23,25

commercial 139:22

Commission 1:1 3:1

3:9 4:3,5 5:8,25

67:22 68:3 194:9

195:25

committed 61:9

common 126:12

commonly 22:9

communication

67:21

communications

21:20

companies 45:8,12

45:14 97:19 98:25

99:2

company 43:11 62:8

62:13 65:22 93:21

97:16,17,17,18

109:5,16,18,22

110:9

comparable 24:22

comparative 171:16

compare 170:18

compared 65:15

154:24

Compatibilization

2:12 176:15,19

compensated 62:10

competition 65:17

competitive 65:7

66:12

complaining 67:17

68:1,9

complaint 5:13 9:20

9:22 11:6 15:9

19:15 20:16 21:1

21:13,15 27:18

66:18,19,20 67:24

68:7,13,16,19,20

126:25 137:17

188:22 189:17

complaints 100:19

100:20

complementary

135:12

complete 19:7 24:22

28:22 36:9,11

41:23 42:10 49:2

73:14 162:15

163:15 177:18

completed 19:4

completely 21:4

24:19 25:10,19,23

26:18 28:8 31:15

33:14,15 36:6

69:17,21 70:9 72:4

75:11,25 76:7,16

76:20 77:7 111:22

115:16 161:20

168:8 177:5 179:4

179:12 180:14

181:1,25 182:21

183:23 184:19

185:10,17 186:13

186:19 187:5

completion 153:20

complex 102:24

130:23 134:3

188:5

composed 107:17

composition 9:16

10:21 80:17,20

107:25

compost 2:5 64:4

163:5 167:5

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[201]

compostability 93:6

93:13,15

compostable 64:3,9

64:23 65:17,21,25

66:7 94:6,7,10

109:3,4 110:11,20

composting 2:10

43:9 165:10,18

174:18,22

Compound 7:3

compounds 139:7

Comprehensive

147:5

comprises 130:14

132:4

comprising 77:12

concept 106:25

concepts 103:19

104:2

concerned 77:1

123:23 124:4

concerning 11:14

12:9 30:1 31:20

58:4 67:22 68:20

98:8 100:21 115:7

117:20

conclude 114:7

117:9

concluded 167:7

193:17

concludes 117:1

142:1

conclusion 76:19

85:23 117:21

121:7 135:4

154:21 155:4,6

161:4,6 191:25

192:7

conclusions 124:4

169:19

condition 139:15,16

conditions 41:9

139:12,13,17

158:15 162:19,23

163:16 171:1

172:3,11 174:8

176:3 185:24

188:4

conducted 89:10,14

89:17,23 188:18

conference 99:9,23

conferences 99:5

confines 120:7

confirmatory

151:18

conflate 103:18

104:2

conform 196:9

connection 54:12

116:8,10 122:19

consensus 112:24

113:5,20

consider 16:9 18:6,9

18:12,17,19 40:24

43:7,8 69:16,20

104:2,24 135:20

135:22 184:21

186:10,14,18

considered 89:16,18

89:24 135:17

186:6

consistently 38:8

consisting 77:14

constituent 103:9

Constitution 3:10

construed 42:5

consult 68:19

consultant 61:22

62:12

consulting 97:8,10

consumers 35:14

36:18,25

contact 98:12,13

contacted 98:14

contain 112:1

contained 23:2,19

90:2 92:16 180:11

194:7

containing 42:15

148:24

contend 112:4

content 19:16,18

20:3,4,5,17 68:18

94:20 95:21

123:13,23 130:7

130:19 133:15

138:6 145:19

158:4

contention 111:13

contents 155:20

context 24:24 149:1

180:20 192:5

continental 120:7

continue 8:7 55:8

62:16 97:21

contrary 116:17

117:2

control 53:20,25

84:6,13,20,22,23

84:24 85:10,11,17

85:19 170:24

controls 53:17 84:4

84:11

convenience 14:21

conventional 70:22

71:9,12,24 112:25

113:6,21 114:7,9

114:11,18 115:1,6

116:20 117:6,18

123:4 149:8

conversion 1:21

117:25 118:2

152:5 153:10

converted 91:9,23

102:15 174:5

175:25

copied 39:4

copies 11:5 59:2

copolyester 73:21

74:3,4 145:8

149:16

copolyesters 159:8

copolymer 72:20

77:13,21 88:11,16

108:24 109:1,2

copolymers 107:17

108:6

copy 11:8 15:16

19:8 57:10 58:8

94:14 115:21

146:15 150:25

151:4

corporate 69:25

corporation 7:17

99:19

corporations 7:12

7:14,22 8:9

Corps 188:13

correct 7:4 15:24

17:15 19:7 27:21

31:2 32:24 39:15

39:24 43:3 45:19

52:20 57:10 60:7

72:9,13 74:22 75:7

75:8 76:1,20 77:11

79:4 85:21 86:8

87:5 90:5,7 91:4

94:22 101:2

116:23,24 129:13

133:20 148:21

152:22 154:16

160:8 164:6,11

166:22 169:3,6,13

170:10 173:1

176:7,10 196:8

correction 196:7,12

corrections 195:7

196:5

correctly 103:22

correlatable 170:20

correlate 171:13

correlated 170:25

corresponding

159:12,19

corroborated

154:21 155:5

costs 53:1,2

counsel 5:11,13 7:15

8:1 9:22 15:6

19:15 20:16 21:1

21:13,15 27:18

67:24 68:7 111:8

127:1 137:18

188:22 189:17

couple 65:4 111:12

121:21 146:3

193:2

course 7:23 17:2,7

17:12,16,21 123:9

146:5

courses 16:19,20

17:1,8,20,23

court 20:21 40:4

56:25 66:20 130:5

138:4 165:24

covered 78:13 84:25

85:3 99:21

co-author 47:17

157:2 178:7,14

co-authors 179:25

Co-Continuous 2:6

164:18

co-owner 56:16

co-PET 74:1

co-polyethylene

74:7

CO2 41:6 91:3,8,9

91:23 131:5

139:11,14,15

156:14 174:7

176:2 189:23

190:4

cream 109:9

create 100:6 112:6

112:15

created 45:4 100:12

credit 175:14,16

critical 103:15

criticism 140:14

critiques 38:21

critters 191:11

Crockett 194:15

crystalline 160:5

cultures 153:5

156:15

Cup 63:18,20

currently 38:13

109:17 169:21

curve 82:9

customary 21:6

25:9,12 27:4 28:10

41:24 42:11 69:22

70:11 75:13 113:1

113:7,22 161:21

168:9 177:8 179:6

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[202]

179:14 180:17

181:3 182:2,23

183:25 185:8,13

185:19 186:20

customers 64:22

cut 79:1

CV 1:8 15:12,13,18

23:18 26:16 37:6,8

38:3 106:9

cycle 191:10

C14 152:14

C2 72:23

C20 72:23

D

D 1:2 5:1 194:17

damage 131:8 135:8

135:21

damages 12:15

Dan 14:3

Dartmouth 109:21

data 87:9,11,24 88:4

188:10,10,15,21

188:23 189:7,10

189:12,14,16,19

190:17,18,20,22

190:24,25 191:3

DATE 194:4 196:2

dated 1:15,15 94:16

95:14 107:12

108:5 115:22

194:12

day 29:5,6 114:14

195:18

days 28:21 29:1,1

76:4,19 78:20 79:5

79:8,17 81:18 83:2

83:8,18,23 84:1

86:11 87:8 152:25

166:6,10 173:11

deal 11:15 14:15

dealing 14:12 156:3

decide 139:17

decision 39:1

decompose 21:5

24:20 25:11,24

26:19 28:9 36:7

70:10 75:12 177:7

179:5 185:11,18

decomposes 182:1

182:22

decomposing

180:15 181:2

183:24 185:6

decomposition

40:22 144:8

161:24 162:10,15

decrease 41:5

decreases 138:24

141:12

deem 148:21

Defense 188:3

define 24:9 170:14

defined 25:7 40:20

41:4 102:2 184:5

defining 40:16

101:20

definite 153:6

definitely 63:15

193:15

definition 21:8,8,14

21:16,21,24 22:6,8

22:14,20 23:1,6,19

23:23 24:7,13,23

26:4,6 27:6,14,23

28:22,24 29:2,7,10

32:19,19,25 33:3,8

33:12 34:18,25

35:5,12,22 36:1,4

36:5,14,17,24 40:1

40:5,8 41:14,21

42:9 43:14 75:19

92:15 106:22

114:21 127:12,14

127:19,21

definitions 33:16

40:11,14,18

definitive 149:12

150:7,12 153:15

deform 82:13

deformation 82:14

degradability 2:3

157:6,11 159:7

160:4,6,17 161:1

degradable 100:2,4

112:9 121:24

178:20

degradation 1:19

2:9 18:16,18 37:20

38:2,7 78:16 83:1

83:2,7 103:6,10,16

103:25 104:16

106:6,16,24

112:11 115:17

126:19 127:6

128:2,16 130:12

130:13,20,23

131:4,16,19 132:3

133:3,16,19,23

134:22 135:24

136:4 138:15,16

138:21 139:2,5,11

139:19 141:9

143:17,21 144:8

144:13 145:21

146:10 147:4,16

148:6 149:20

152:25 156:8,19

157:23 158:7

159:9,13 161:5

164:22 165:4

166:9,14 168:25

169:4,9 170:4,7,18

170:21 171:14,16

172:2,10,14

184:13,23

degradational 154:9

154:19

degradative 139:18

156:14

degrade 75:25 125:2

125:11 128:8

130:18 132:19

139:13 140:10

144:16 149:19

184:12,14,15,17

185:25 186:19

degraded 78:19

83:2,5,9,18 119:11

148:17 149:24

153:25 166:7,8,10

166:11

degrades 72:4

121:20 186:13

degrading 149:22

166:6

degree 17:9 112:3

degrees 159:4

Delafield 158:13

delineate 163:21

delivery 109:7

demonstrate 159:7

demonstrated

157:24 158:8

180:19,20

Densified 45:16

density 147:19,20

147:24 148:7

Department 34:12

188:3

depend 40:12 75:18

depending 40:15

depends 81:20,23

depolymerase

158:24 161:2

depolymerases

130:17 132:18

depolymerization

105:12 131:3

134:21

depolymerize

158:22

deponent 6:3 195:1

deposed 5:18,20,24

deposition 5:9 6:11

7:23 15:17,22 34:1

39:6 40:9 43:24

46:5 49:14 57:3

88:1 89:6 94:15

95:13 103:2

115:24 122:14

127:4 137:21

138:5 152:3

155:10 157:7

158:4 163:2

164:16 168:13

170:3 174:21

176:14 177:24

179:17 181:6

183:4 194:4

der 40:17

describe 112:23

160:23 161:5

171:24 172:13

described 74:11,24

81:2,7 91:12,14

106:19 107:1

describes 106:15

131:14

description 1:8

46:12 49:3,5 50:15

74:21 79:24 94:21

165:22

descriptions 106:5

design 173:20 175:8

designed 174:4

175:24

destroy 10:4 11:12

11:25 12:5,22 15:6

detail 102:7 131:15

deterioration 41:4

determination

38:24 55:10 93:17

93:18,19 165:14

184:1,3

determine 2:10 77:6

152:23 160:4

172:25 174:18,23

determined 152:24

159:1 180:24

determining 55:1,4

55:5 169:9

developed 74:14,18

74:19

development 123:3

diacid 72:21,23

diacids 72:24

diblock 107:17

differ 156:5

difference 21:10

32:21 103:15

187:17,21

different 13:2 37:16

40:14,19 72:23

80:13 125:5 150:3

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[203]

153:4 157:24

158:8

diffuse 139:9

dimers 130:25 134:4

139:4 143:19

dioxide 102:16

131:5 134:23

152:19,21 167:23

direct 53:1

directed 77:19

director 44:1

disability 6:22,25

7:1

disagree 123:20

127:22,23 128:7

128:18 132:19,23

132:24 135:14,19

140:8 141:13,14

142:21 143:19

144:15 145:18

disagreed 178:14

disagreement

128:20

discolored 173:12

discontinue 97:23

discontinued 109:17

discover 56:13

discovery 50:6

discuss 8:6 100:3

114:17

discussed 14:23

86:14 88:25 94:12

discussion 68:15

173:3

disintegrate 130:24

134:3

disintegrated

103:21 173:7

disintegration

103:11 104:8

Display 8:20 14:14

14:25 15:2,11

displaying 14:21

disposable 174:3

disposable-plastic

175:24

disposal 21:6 25:9

25:12 27:4 28:10

41:24 42:11 69:22

70:11 75:14 113:1

113:7,22 161:21

168:9 173:21

175:10 177:8

179:7,14 180:9,17

181:4 182:2,23

183:25 185:8,13

185:20 186:20

dispositive 148:22

dissertations 26:9

distinct 103:18

104:1 106:25

135:17

distinction 22:11

distinctly 126:4

distinguish 20:6

distribution 148:15

153:23

Dixie 63:17,20

Docket 3:3 5:9

DOCKET/FILE

194:2

Doctor 82:7

document 1:11,13

1:15,16 18:22 19:5

19:17 20:12 34:8

46:3,6,9 49:15,19

49:22 66:21,22

67:20 68:1,9 94:14

94:19 95:12,14,18

95:18 103:3

108:16 188:11

documentation

87:16,19 111:10

documented 118:20

119:13

documents 11:6,12

12:2,6 15:6,8,10

50:1,2 67:23 68:6

doing 79:4 161:13

177:19

dollars 61:8

donated 69:6

Dr 5:10 123:1

131:14 137:13

139:25 168:19

193:6

draft 19:11,25

drafted 19:17 20:4,4

20:5,8,12,18

drafting 126:23

drafts 19:23

draftsmanship

19:19

draw 72:25 101:18

101:22

drawing 22:11

drawn 192:1,8

due 103:12 105:16

131:8 135:8,24

139:5 144:13

145:21 153:9

duly 5:4

duration 82:19

89:15

dwell 191:7

D.C 3:12 4:8 128:25

D5210 90:3

D5511 90:3 189:4

D5526 90:4

D6400 88:22 93:16

94:4

D644 88:18

E

E 1:2 5:1,1 173:6

194:17,17,17,17

earlier 35:20 75:24

94:12 153:22

EarthShell 8:14,15

9:1 10:13 13:3,7

13:19 14:23

easier 60:12 140:22

easily 123:3 131:12

159:14

Eastman 149:15

151:5

Echo 45:9,15

ECM 3:3 4:10 5:8

5:14 66:23 67:18

67:22 68:2,10,13

70:20,24 71:19

100:20 103:20

188:19 194:3

196:3

ECMs 148:23

ECM's 67:17

103:17

Eden 188:23 189:1,5

189:8,11,12,14

190:21

edit 39:14

editor 37:11,14 38:1

38:6,12 41:12

Education 94:14

Edward 194:24

effect 2:15 55:13,15

143:14,15 153:16

179:18,22

effects 2:2 157:4,9

160:5

effort 19:14,22

20:16

either 38:22 42:7

93:18 111:2

electrophoretic

158:24

element 184:22

elemental 102:11

elements 21:5 24:21

25:11,22,25 26:19

28:9 36:7 70:10

75:12 103:9,10

177:7,19 179:5

180:16 181:2

182:1,22 183:24

184:6,8,18,19

185:7,12,18 187:6

Ellison 110:8

elongation 82:11

embodiments 73:1,4

80:12

embrittled 173:13

Emerging 1:11 39:8

Emord 1:5 4:11,12

5:7,14,14,16 13:15

13:17 15:20 34:4,6

39:10 42:18,20

46:4,8 49:17,23,25

50:6,10 52:16 57:5

58:8,19 59:2 66:15

66:17 87:19,23

88:2,5 94:17 95:16

101:25 102:4

103:4 111:8

115:20 116:2

117:19 121:13

122:17 127:2,7

137:19,24 146:16

152:8 155:15

157:12 158:2

163:6,25 164:20

168:17 170:6

174:25 176:18

178:3 179:21

181:10 183:3,8

193:1

empirical 87:24

88:4

employee 94:25

95:1

enable 129:17,17

encourage 56:2

ended 172:23

endogenous 130:18

133:14

energy 101:15

102:11 131:2

134:6 138:24

139:8 141:13

engineer 141:1

engineering 15:23

34:12

Engineers 188:14

England 14:1

enhance 104:16

enhanced 156:13

ensure 95:10

ensuring 6:6

enter 55:21

entire 21:3 28:7

40:7,7 44:7 113:19

130:7 145:11

154:17

entirely 117:10

174:5 175:25

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[204]

entirety 138:6

entitled 1:11,13

34:10 41:14,21

42:14 46:6 49:15

146:10 147:4,23

170:7 176:19

178:7 179:22

181:11

entitled,Microwa...

183:9

enumerated 163:23

164:3

environment 1:9 2:5

2:9 34:3,9 37:12

37:15 38:8 40:14

76:1 85:24 104:19

112:15 137:5

149:23 161:21

163:5 169:20

170:5,8 171:15,21

174:6 176:1

environmental 41:2

113:24 128:2

139:17 162:19,23

163:16 188:10

environmentally

100:2,4

environments 112:6

159:6

enzymatic 18:15,18

130:4,8,10,12

131:15,19 135:4

153:9 160:6 167:5

168:24 169:4

enzyme 102:22

130:14 132:5

140:10 146:23

159:2,9 161:2

169:2

enzymes 40:21

101:8 102:9,17,25

105:20 117:4

125:1,5 130:13

131:9,23 132:4

135:9,24,24 139:5

144:5,13 145:22

146:11 158:22

159:9 191:17

enzyme-mediated

159:13

EPA 188:2,11

equal 166:12

equipment 61:19,21

eroded 173:9

erosion 173:14

errata 196:6

erroneously 103:19

error 80:11 104:11

105:6 123:25

124:2,18 161:15

196:8

errors 196:5

especially 154:22

156:15

Esquire 4:4,11

essential 161:11

essentially 77:14

148:21

establish 47:3 70:8

74:12 76:10,15,24

81:5 87:16 149:13

150:7 161:19

177:5 179:3,11

180:13 182:13

185:4

established 44:19

47:1,4 75:10 76:6

90:22 184:16

establishes 120:5

142:8

establishing 86:18

167:25

establishment

180:25

estimate 62:23

estuarine 158:12

et 147:4,23 158:13

ethylene 152:16

Europe 9:17

evaluated 172:24

Evaluating 188:14

Evenflo 8:20 14:7

14:24

event 40:20 99:7

events 159:13

eventually 76:20

everybody 151:16

evidence 30:10,21

30:25 48:5 72:3

86:4 118:24

119:17,24 120:1,3

120:17,19,23

121:3,18,19 130:1

189:10

evidentiary 119:16

119:22

exact 23:22 26:13,21

26:22 27:9,10 29:9

158:4

exactly 37:22 45:23

55:19 61:3

EXAMINATION

1:4 5:16 193:5

examined 195:4

examiner 92:19

examiners 93:10

example 20:11

66:25 67:21 73:19

74:22 96:8 154:23

excerpt 20:22 40:5

49:21

excerpted 89:8

excess 80:14

exchange 96:10

exclude 30:19 186:5

186:7

exclusive 59:8 63:8

63:9 107:20

excreting 158:21

excuse 20:4,23 25:9

28:23 40:6 70:21

141:23

executed 195:19

exhibit 1:8 15:15,18

18:23 19:12 23:18

33:23 34:2,8 36:16

36:23 37:10 39:5,7

42:18 46:4,6 49:2

49:13,15,24 50:17

57:2,4 63:7,23

69:11 72:8 84:21

88:7 89:8 94:16

95:14 103:1,3

106:20 113:9,11

115:21,25 122:15

127:3,5 137:20,22

142:7 145:2 152:4

155:8,11 157:8,13

158:5 163:3

164:15,17 166:2

168:12,14,19

170:2,4 173:17

174:20,22 176:13

176:15 177:25

179:16,18 181:7

183:5

exhibits 193:13

exist 18:7 118:25

119:21,24 120:10

120:16,18,20,24

120:25 121:4,8

184:1

existed 169:14

existence 104:18

122:5,8 180:24

exists 24:6,18 56:15

110:9

exoenzyme 158:25

exoenzymes 105:20

exogenous 130:21

133:17 158:20

expand 51:14

expanded 51:2

expected 166:12,15

expensive 131:25

experience 6:3

experiments 154:9

154:19

expert 1:8 7:5,9 9:4

9:12 10:5,12 11:8

11:20,23 12:19

14:25 15:13,13,18

18:6,9,12,17,20,24

18:24 19:8 20:23

21:9 22:7,16 23:2

26:7 27:8,17 32:20

61:24 62:10 70:14

75:20 82:18 85:21

89:7 92:16 106:2

112:22 122:9,23

126:22,24 137:16

155:18 193:14

expertise 141:1

EXPIRES 195:25

explain 16:17 72:16

82:6 91:1,2 101:7

156:23 160:11,25

161:10 182:17

191:10,13,16

explained 103:7

explains 128:17

140:2 168:24

explanation 90:21

exposed 169:1

exposure 162:19,23

163:16 173:11

exposures 173:5

express 182:25

extant 120:6

extensively 173:5,9

extent 21:19 154:1

156:14 162:10,15

extracellular 105:19

130:17,23 132:18

133:19,22 139:5

140:10 144:4,13

145:22 158:21

extrapolate 79:10

80:4 169:18

extrapolating 76:18

79:6 171:20

extrapolation 80:17

80:20 85:22 86:3

extremely 166:5

e-mail 66:25 67:16

96:10

e-mails 96:11

F

F 82:18 156:15

194:17,17,17

facility 51:14

fact 66:5 86:5 164:7

173:7 184:8

factor 54:25

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[205]

factors 41:2 89:16

facts 48:5 72:2

189:9 196:10

factual 52:23

faculty 55:16

faecalis 158:18

fair 104:3 105:19

125:21 170:23

172:8

fall 112:21

falls 186:22 187:2

false 6:5

familiar 67:15

114:16,24 115:4

121:25 123:8

137:12 144:10

146:7,17,19

151:25 152:9

155:8,20

familiarity 146:4

family 178:19

far 43:19 76:25

106:10 123:22

124:3

fare 99:21

farm 151:15

fast 83:8 84:1 166:5

166:10

Federal 1:1 3:1,9

4:3,5 5:7,25 8:4

67:22 68:3 194:9

feed 191:14

feel 6:15 141:5

154:6 195:7

fees 60:2,3

fermentation

178:21

field 40:12 121:6

188:5

figure 75:3 76:6

78:22 79:16 81:3

81:20,25 82:24

83:11 86:19 88:12

95:9 131:13 136:1

136:1,3,16 166:4

file 100:25

filed 66:23,24 68:12

83:20 92:11

100:20,21

filing 68:16 100:24

film 152:13 153:7

154:24

films 173:13

financial 43:22 54:8

find 49:12 85:9 92:7

123:24 124:4,18

161:15 177:22

183:21,22

finding 83:17

154:16 156:10,17

191:25 192:1,7,9

192:15,17

finish 85:5

finished 64:11,14

finishing 110:7

firm 14:4,5

firms 13:2

first 5:4 6:15 21:14

24:1 27:18 35:11

35:21 37:9,25 40:6

40:7 67:9,11,12

70:15 72:21 77:12

77:15 98:13

105:11 116:6

119:3 127:12,21

132:4 140:2

155:16 157:21

163:22 164:4

173:18 175:5,22

178:18 180:3,12

181:13,18

Firstly 130:14

fissures 101:10

five 38:18 74:13

76:5 77:2,5 79:23

80:2,4,14

Florida 151:16

flow 131:13

focus 139:25

focused 125:22

following 131:12

138:10 140:4

follows 5:6

food 191:18

footnote 20:11,13,17

20:22 21:17,24

22:7,15,20 23:3,20

24:6 27:17,24

28:23 29:3,8 32:17

75:20 89:2,3,4,5,6

89:19 92:16

118:18,19 128:21

128:21

forces 131:9 135:9

foregoing 195:4

forgive 68:24

forgot 57:11

form 32:3 61:13,16

93:23 118:5 120:4

135:21 154:22

161:3

format 194:21

formation 18:10

41:6 91:3 139:3

143:18,22 162:11

163:14

forming 107:25

forms 191:17

forth 124:16

forward 145:23

found 21:5 24:21

25:11,25 26:19

28:9 31:13 36:7

40:18 70:10 75:12

103:10 120:1

124:24 146:23

156:19 167:18

168:5 177:7 179:6

180:16 181:3

182:1,22 183:24

184:2,7,8,11,25

185:7,12,18 187:6

192:16

foundation 30:17

52:15 65:1 67:3

91:25

founding 100:10

four 98:10 140:4

fragmented 173:16

fragmenting 103:11

fragments 139:4

143:18,22 173:7

frame 28:16

France 48:13

Frankel 67:1,16

free 6:16 111:14,21

111:22 154:6

frequently 96:7,10

98:7

Friday 3:7

front 123:6 142:5

170:13 171:12

FTC 43:18,23 67:1

67:17 68:9,13

101:1

FTC's 100:22

fuel 102:15

full 33:12 54:19 55:5

55:7 82:25 90:20

163:22 164:4

165:25 170:13

171:11 173:4

175:6 176:22

180:12,12 194:7

fully 180:4,8,11

function 6:20,23

61:2 97:21,24

116:19

functioning 50:16

51:8

fund 52:18 53:13

63:2

funders 69:25

funding 62:24

funds 54:5,9

fungi 1:22 118:21

119:5,9,12,19

130:17 132:18

147:25 152:6

156:3

fungus 158:25

funiculosum 158:25

159:10 161:3

further 71:22 87:8

87:11,12 139:7

154:21 155:5

156:22 193:1,16

furthermore 164:8

Fusarium 1:24

155:13

G

G 5:1 84:11 128:22

173:6,8

Gamble 9:9,10,19

10:2

garbage 82:15,16

gas 152:20

general 34:23 58:11

64:2 125:4 129:9

134:10 196:8

generally 34:22

112:6,14 114:12

146:1,2

Georgia-Pacific

63:17

germane 140:13

182:6

getting 55:24

gist 147:12

give 15:15 35:22

48:22 54:14 61:14

69:15 73:9 86:2

98:25 106:6,11,13

125:9 143:23

163:1

given 60:22 61:6

62:24 68:25 79:25

86:12 127:13

195:5

gives 127:19 132:3

133:9

giving 106:10

Glass 128:22

glycol 2:8 168:15,21

go 13:13 19:2,17

20:7 23:5 37:6

44:23 46:21 54:6,9

57:7,9 65:22 66:15

70:15 76:13 79:2

82:18,23 94:23

102:5 103:14

107:3 111:12

127:8 131:16

142:16 144:12

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[206]

155:22 177:22

182:17 187:10

goes 7:24 52:17,19

53:5,13 76:3,12,13

76:24 133:14

151:16 189:22

going 15:14 20:21

30:18 39:3 40:4

42:21 46:2 62:15

140:1 144:5 146:3

146:5 152:12

163:1 165:24

good 55:15 96:4

100:13 153:5

Grandes 194:24

grant 52:12,12 55:8

61:17

grants 52:7 53:4

54:13,16 60:23

62:16,21 68:25

69:15 94:12 98:25

greatly 34:19 35:1,6

35:13 36:17,24

green 100:22

Gross 47:6 175:13

group 72:24 139:17

groups 138:19,22,23

141:8,10,12,17

143:12

growing 138:25

142:18 158:15

growth 128:10,15

138:13

Guadaloupe 14:3

guess 161:8 190:25

guessing 55:18

151:14

Guidance 188:9,14

guides 100:22

guys 96:7

H

H 173:6

half 45:1

Handbook 144:9

handed 117:5

hand-drawn 1:16

103:3

happen 141:21

142:1,2

happened 7:16,16

156:1 171:4

happens 28:17

141:22,24 144:2

hard 18:2

Harris 14:6

Hasbro 8:17,19

14:23

head 96:2 142:9

heading 40:1,8

130:4,7 138:7

160:24

hear 31:21 85:4

90:20

hearing 3:15 194:8

heat 101:15 102:15

held 69:12

help 19:18 72:9 73:2

86:14

heterogeneous

188:6

high 108:1

higher 43:25 156:7

High-Density 1:25

155:14

high-molecular-w...

143:1 147:20

high-surface 154:23

himself/herself

195:17

history 44:24 46:21

46:25

hold 108:11,12

holder 63:8 95:23

holler 79:1

homogeneity 158:24

Honestly 62:17

hoped 172:12,22

horseradish 126:11

hospitable 112:6,15

112:18

hotel 99:21

hour 43:24

huge 65:4

hundred 76:24

139:20

hydrogradable

107:16

hydrolase 125:17

126:1

hydrolases 125:7,10

125:23

hydrolic 101:4,5,10

130:16 132:8

hydrolysis 40:25

41:11 159:11,15

hydrolytic 101:6,12

102:9 132:6

159:13

hydrolytically

146:24

hydrolyzed 130:20

133:16

hydrophilic 129:12

129:16,22 136:22

137:1,9 138:18,21

138:23,23 140:20

140:23 141:10,11

141:12,17 143:7

143:12

hydrophobic 129:12

129:13,16,23

136:22,23 137:1

137:10 138:20

140:24 141:8

hydroxybutyrate

145:9

Hyperbranched

2:15 179:18,23

hyphenation 194:20

H2O 41:7 131:5

139:11,14,16

H2S 139:15

I

idea 64:2

ideal 82:14

identical 103:7

identification 15:14

18:23 33:23 63:7

102:8 115:20

137:20 168:18

181:21

identified 71:3

79:13 102:17

150:6 158:19

180:2 181:13,18

identifies 64:9

104:19 149:11

identify 20:17 92:4

146:3 148:20

150:11 178:9

Igoe 67:1,4,16 94:25

II 1:21 152:5

III 1:23 155:12

illustrate 101:19

102:2

immediately 184:9

Immicisible 2:6

164:18

imparts 74:5

Imperial 158:9

impervious 117:10

implications 160:18

important 54:20,24

141:18 173:20

175:8

improper 85:24

impurities 111:14

111:18,21,22

112:1,4,13

inaccurate 46:15

94:21 95:5,21

incarnation 69:3

incinerator 21:7

25:13 27:4

include 22:7 36:11

42:8 45:6 51:2,4

105:6 188:23

includes 25:8

including 15:8 26:8

30:12

income 51:23 52:3

incorrect 24:14

increase 54:15

55:10,18,20

increased 173:19

175:7

increases 83:14

independent 100:8

100:9 188:18

independently 62:3

India 99:9,21

Indian 99:22

indicate 6:11 94:5

117:24 128:14

145:18 182:20

indicates 117:15

indication 50:13

indications 121:22

indirect 53:1

individual 195:16

195:18

induce 131:10

135:10

Industries 158:10

industry 45:8

inexpensive 114:13

infer 103:19

influence 41:8

inform 94:20 95:19

information 94:9

117:15 151:23

182:6 193:8

informed 69:14,24

92:14

infringement 10:15

10:22 14:18

ingredient 109:10

inherently 183:16

184:10

Initial 138:20 141:8

inoculum 149:5

190:2,5,9,12

insert 130:6 138:5

inserting 143:11

insertion 138:21,23

141:10,11,16

insoluble 105:17

instance 24:8 25:5

25:14 118:20

instances 15:5 70:7

192:10,12

Institute 44:2,15

48:12 93:2,3,5

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[207]

institution 48:9,11

54:14

instructed 7:25

instructs 8:5

integrated 173:21

175:9

intelligent 173:21

175:9

intended 75:15

interact 96:19 98:4

98:7

interacted 96:14

interactivity 118:5

interchangeably

21:9 32:20

interested 66:9

interesting 160:18

interests 40:17

intermediaries

162:12 163:15

international 63:21

96:21,24 115:22

interpreted 153:9

inter-laboratory

89:11,13

intracellular 130:16

130:20 132:17

133:16

intra-laboratory

89:11

introducing 149:15

introduction 127:12

157:22 175:6,23

176:22 180:4,13

invalid 84:6,14

invalidity 9:17

invent 56:6

invented 58:1

inventing 55:24

invention 56:8

65:22 72:8 73:17

165:1

inventor 107:10

108:10

inventors 57:16

59:25 60:5

investigation 3:15

investigator 53:18

investigators 53:19

53:25

involve 9:18 10:16

14:7 105:24

159:22

involved 10:20

14:11 60:20

100:24 126:10

139:19 179:10

involves 103:8,11

138:9 140:3

involving 5:25 99:8

In-laboratory 159:5

isoelectric 159:2

isolated 147:25

158:18,23 159:9

161:2

isolation 158:13

issue 10:12 142:14

issued 56:23 108:17

issues 9:13 14:7 98:8

113:24

items 88:1

i.e 21:5,7

J

J 137:13

Janice 67:1,16

JE 128:22

Jersey 14:6

job 98:13

Johnson 1:6 4:4

5:12,12 7:3,18

10:25 13:13 19:13

19:20 20:14 21:18

22:2,10 25:1,18

26:1 27:25 28:4,15

29:25 30:17,24

31:16 32:1,9 33:17

34:20 41:25 43:5

43:13 47:24 48:4

48:19 49:8,21,24

50:4,8 52:14 53:10

53:22 55:2 56:1

58:10,15 59:4

64:25 65:8 66:3

67:2 68:4 70:2

72:1 74:16 75:22

76:11,21 77:8 78:2

79:9,18 80:6,9

81:8,22 83:19

84:15 85:5,13

86:20 87:21,25

88:10,20 90:16

91:11,13,24 92:17

92:24 99:15

101:24 102:3

104:5 105:8

112:17 113:15

114:19 117:17

118:8 119:6

120:21 121:2

125:3,12 129:14

132:8 133:25

134:13 135:2

136:18 137:2

141:19 143:10

145:2,13 146:14

149:14 153:19

154:5 157:20

163:24 168:2

171:22 172:15

177:9 178:12

179:8 180:18

182:15 184:20

186:16 187:9,19

188:7,20 189:9,19

190:13 192:3,18

192:24 193:2,5,16

Jonathan 4:11 5:14

journal 29:12,19,20

30:5 37:11,15,16

37:19 38:1,6,7

39:4,13,14,20,22

41:12 42:17

104:19,25 106:15

114:17 115:22

117:1 121:5 148:1

149:11 150:5,23

159:17

journals 30:11,22

judgment 136:2

153:14 186:5

June 3:7 39:5 194:4

196:2

junior 47:23

justification 113:17

K

K 125:18,25 126:5

165:10,18

Karlsson 40:19

Katherine 4:4 5:12

Keep 15:21

kiliense 156:11

kind 14:12 77:24

121:3

kinds 18:13 125:1,9

kinetics 159:8

knew 83:20

know 19:25 22:11

23:14 24:16,17

30:1,4,9 31:9

32:15 36:15,19,22

43:10 49:18 50:7

50:12 59:21 62:18

62:19,22 63:14,16

63:16 64:1,6,7

65:2 67:4 68:12

71:23 72:6 87:7,13

87:15 88:16 94:2

94:11 98:16

100:21 102:24

109:9,22,24 121:3

122:5,8,11 123:8

123:12 150:22

162:1 169:23

173:2 177:21,23

182:18 186:12,12

188:2,8 190:15

knowledge 19:9

46:11 65:10 79:21

93:22 94:9 95:6,20

100:19 116:18

117:2 159:23

179:11 194:10

knowledgeable

18:19

known 88:2 101:10

176:23

knows 146:17

L

lab 56:6,10,14,18

58:1 142:14

169:19 170:25

171:20 188:5

189:1,2

labeled 1:24 149:19

152:16,18 153:6

155:13 156:18

labeling 64:8 149:8

156:2

labels 64:8

laboratories 157:25

158:9 159:7

laboratory 158:22

166:23

Laboratory-Scale

2:10 174:22

labs 93:11 188:18,23

188:24 189:5,5,8,8

189:11,13,13,15

190:23

Lacks 64:25 67:2

91:25

land 54:13

landfill 2:9 21:7

25:13 27:4 147:25

170:5,8 171:1

172:3,10 191:8,11

landfills 18:7,10,14

92:23 119:1,22,25

169:20 170:21

171:17,21

Lane 4:13

language 24:22,22

25:7,14 26:3,4,11

26:13,18,21,21,22

26:24,25 27:5,13

36:5,10,11 85:11

112:24 134:11

large 114:15 143:1

law 13:2,14

lawsuit 12:15

lawyer 67:8

lawyers 12:24 13:4

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[208]

13:5 60:19,20

lawyer's 60:2

LDPE 147:24

leachate-recycled

172:3,10

lead 91:19 104:15

leading 139:3

143:17,21

leads 91:3,7,20,22

102:9 138:21

141:9

lecanii 156:12

left 180:3

left-hand 40:2

legal 22:22,23 66:20

lemoignei 158:17

length 87:20 153:11

letter 66:21 92:18

let's 15:12 24:1,5

25:21,22 26:22

28:17,21,25 30:19

33:22 37:6,9,25

38:14 42:13 49:10

57:1 60:10,11

66:15 70:13 72:7

78:24 80:19 86:9

89:3 90:6 91:1

93:1 95:12 101:3

101:22 103:1

106:23 111:12

115:20 127:2

136:15 137:19

144:12 150:14

152:2 163:7

164:14 168:11

170:1 176:12

177:15 178:5

193:2

liability 14:11

liberation 1:23

153:6 155:12

156:14

license 63:8 109:16

licensed 107:22

108:7,14,18,19

109:4,13,16,23

110:5,8,19,21,22

110:24 111:2,4

licensee 63:9 107:20

108:3 109:25

life 125:2 191:7,10

191:17

Lifetime 8:16 14:23

limit 36:1 77:24

133:12

limitation 24:6,7,12

24:18

limitations 30:1

limited 1:21 152:5

153:11

Linda 194:15

Line 196:12

linear 86:5

lines 73:19 82:24

lipase 102:19,21

Lipases 125:15

list 19:4 36:4 37:10

81:13 96:24 98:15

108:12,14

listed 25:4 26:16

57:16,18 60:5 76:6

78:3,4,6 84:22

88:12 116:22

157:13 167:8,13

167:16

listing 25:4 73:5

lists 80:12 128:20,21

140:4

literature 31:5

120:4 141:25

litigation 122:6,19

123:9 152:10

little 27:2 30:18 37:6

60:12 69:13 74:10

77:2

lived 119:14

living 40:22

located 51:10,12

location 51:9

lock 118:9

logo 93:23 94:1,9

long 18:3 37:14 60:1

70:25 82:20 127:9

149:25

long-chain 101:13

look 15:12 18:25

20:1 33:22 37:7,9

38:3 42:13 46:2

49:10 57:1 70:13

70:19 72:7 73:18

77:10 78:14,15,22

82:17 84:3,21

85:20 86:9 87:13

89:3,4 90:6,12

91:1 94:19 95:12

95:19 101:3

106:23 116:15

118:18 123:11,14

127:11 130:3

132:1 136:1 138:2

140:18 145:16

152:2 153:1

155:22 159:16

160:1 163:17

164:14 165:20

168:11 170:1,12

173:3,17 175:1,5

176:12,21 177:15

177:22 178:5,18

179:16

looked 156:4 172:25

looking 85:2 86:10

101:25 106:24

108:17 124:9

150:4 157:17

looks 49:5 123:1

164:23,23 165:3

165:21 169:3

171:10

loss 83:5,10 162:6

163:13 165:15

168:4 169:5,10

171:10 173:15

lot 20:8 64:24 70:4

125:18 191:1

lots 125:19

low 41:7 82:11

147:19,20,24

148:7 153:24

156:21

Lowell 15:24 34:13

44:1,15 46:3 52:7

52:11 60:23 74:15

107:9 151:2

Lowell's 165:1

lower 143:8,13

low-molecular

118:4 139:6

low-molecular-we...

118:13,16 121:23

139:3 143:18,22

144:19 148:16

154:10,20 155:2

M

M 159:2

macro 105:13

Macromolecules

157:6

madam 158:2

main 82:1 139:2

143:17,21,24,25

maintain 70:6

maintenance 60:2

majority 52:13,17

53:4 71:13 112:20

114:14

making 66:9 138:22

141:11

Malleability 82:6

manufacturer 66:9

manufacturers

35:13 36:18,25

manuscript 39:16

mark 15:14 33:23

39:5 42:18 46:4

49:13 57:2 115:20

127:2 137:19

170:2 174:20

176:13

marked 15:19 18:22

34:3,8 39:9 46:7

49:16 57:4 63:6

89:7 94:16 95:15

103:3 116:1

122:16 127:6

137:23 152:7

155:14 157:11

158:4 163:5

164:19 168:16,18

170:5 174:24

176:17 178:2

179:20 181:9

183:7

marker 148:19

149:12 150:6,11

151:17 153:14

market 63:23,25

64:22 65:18

111:25

marketed 66:4,6

marketing 21:2 22:4

27:19 29:17 33:2,5

marketplace 65:7

66:13

mass 41:6 44:1,14

46:3 48:7,8 51:21

52:7,11 60:22

74:14 107:9

164:25 165:12

Massachusetts

15:24 17:19 34:13

57:15,18

master's 17:8

material 6:7,7 9:21

9:24 10:1 16:7,10

17:4 103:9 154:22

169:1 181:14,19

181:22 188:1

materials 2:4 50:7

101:9 103:18

163:4 170:19

171:17

matter 3:2,14 5:8

9:16 10:22 22:21

22:23 80:17,21

140:25

Matured 2:4 163:4

McCarthy 1:5 5:3

5:10,17 34:12

139:25 193:6

195:13 196:1

McCarthy's 168:19

mean 7:13 30:15

31:12 42:23 43:14

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[209]

45:25 50:13 58:16

61:10 65:3,11,13

66:3 69:9 78:4

88:11 91:17 105:2

105:23 111:16

114:9,12 117:12

124:1 125:4 133:9

137:5,6 148:11

153:19 155:6

164:25 168:3,3

171:3 177:14

189:23 190:1,4,8,8

190:10,11,12

means 16:11 21:3

27:20 28:7

meant 101:11

124:19 133:7,8

measure 2:4 163:3

165:15 169:8

171:8

measured 159:14

164:21 165:3

169:4

measurement

167:23

mechanical 17:11

103:12 135:21

mechanically 131:8

135:8

mechanism 128:14

128:15,17 130:4,8

130:10 131:11,15

132:15 138:3,7,8

143:24 145:17

media 156:13

mediated 159:11

medical 44:2,4,15

44:21 45:17 51:3,5

109:21 111:20

medication 6:19

meet 93:12

meets 94:3

member 69:3 97:2

99:3 100:10,15

members 45:6,8,10

membranes 131:1

134:5

memorized 92:6,9

125:20 126:15

mental 7:1

mention 32:3 98:19

110:22 133:6

148:9

mentioned 10:3

53:23 63:3 85:19

106:3 110:4

122:18 125:25

133:7

mentor 47:7

merely 103:20 149:5

merit 55:21,21,22

met 94:4

metabolic 61:1

162:11

metabolites 131:10

135:10

Metabolix 8:17 9:1

9:4 13:21 14:24

45:9,15 60:22,24

60:25 61:6,23 62:6

62:15 63:7 64:6,13

64:17 67:6,12,13

67:21,25 68:2,9,12

68:16 94:12

100:15

metabolization

154:8,18

metabolize 117:4

metabolized 102:14

118:13,16

methane 91:8 131:5

134:24 190:8,11

methanogenic

139:15

method 2:3 89:14,15

107:25 130:12

131:19 163:3,12

163:20 164:2,8

166:21,24,25

167:1,3 171:8,25

172:13

methodology 74:14

74:17,22,24 88:19

172:1,6,8,21

methods 2:10

156:24 157:24

158:8 174:18,23

180:9

microbes 131:10

135:10 139:8

microbial 1:18,21

70:21,23 71:18

125:1 126:18

127:5 130:13

132:4 133:3,10,21

152:5 157:23

158:7 174:5

175:25 191:7,17

microbially 178:20

Microbiological

148:1

microbiologist 18:4

141:2

microbiology 120:5

microorganism

18:10 102:14

138:11,13 140:9

143:6

microorganisms

18:7,14 33:11 41:8

91:18 101:8 103:8

104:10 105:24

112:7,16 116:19

117:3 118:6,6,14

118:17 123:5

125:10 128:8

129:21 130:22

133:18 136:24

137:7,8 138:17

139:12,18 140:19

142:25 143:4

158:14

Microwave-Assist...

2:19 183:5

middle 124:10,14

milliliter 190:4

milliliters 189:23

190:1

million 61:7 63:3

95:7

mind 192:8

mineralization 2:4

36:9,12 131:3

134:22 162:16

163:4,15

mineralizes 182:10

minor 65:15

minority 136:17,20

minute 193:3

Mirel 67:9,10,12

94:25 95:2

Mischaracterizes

22:3 32:2 55:3

65:9 72:2 76:22

119:7 135:3

182:16

Miscibility 42:15

mispronouncing

68:25

misquoted 134:14

missing 19:1

misspoke 94:24

mistaken 23:21 24:3

24:4 25:17 26:20

27:1,15 52:21

72:15 164:25

misunderstanding

72:10 84:7

mixed 156:15

mixture 85:2

MMM 45:16

Model 2:1,11 157:3

157:9 174:19,24

modification 38:23

moisture 131:7

135:7,21

Mojo 96:1,2,14 98:6

99:10

mold 153:5

molded 14:20 110:7

molds 1:24 155:12

156:3

molecular 41:6

101:10 108:1

115:22 143:8,13

143:14 148:14

153:23,24 156:21

molecular-weight

41:7

molecule 102:13

molecules 101:13

105:13

moment 42:21

95:17,19 123:10

127:8 155:16,22

163:7

momomers 134:4

money 52:12 53:1

54:13 60:10 61:5

monies 53:3 55:8

monomers 130:25

139:4 143:19

monopoly 65:5,13

Monsanto 68:23

69:3

Monstrous 193:10

month 96:13

months 28:20

Morphological 2:2

157:5,10

morphology 160:6

Mueller 146:10

multiple 20:9

Municipal 147:25

M-8102B 4:7

N

N 1:2 5:1

name 8:9 37:17,18

37:24 44:7 50:22

60:24 61:4 85:17

106:14 109:22

125:1 126:6,9,17

160:1 191:6

names 7:21 9:6,7

narrow 38:17

National 8:19 9:1

12:8,13,14 14:2,24

natural 40:13

158:10 159:5

Natural/Syndiota...

2:18 181:8,12

nature 21:5,6 24:20

24:21 25:10,11,24

25:25 26:19,20

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[210]

28:9,10,13 29:14

29:23 30:7,13,23

31:1,8,13,18 32:5

32:8 33:15 36:7,8

41:23 42:11 69:17

69:21 70:10,11

75:12,13 103:10

105:17 161:11

177:6,7,19 179:5,6

179:13 180:15,16

181:2,3 182:1,2,21

182:22 183:24,24

184:2,8,9,12,19,22

184:24 185:1,6,7

185:11,12,18,19

186:20 187:6

NatureWorks 63:15

65:12,15,21

necessarily 130:22

133:18 143:8

184:18

necessary 40:24

195:8

need 6:16 82:12

84:20 90:20

123:14 154:5

needs 155:3

negative 84:6,13,20

84:22,23 85:1,10

85:11,17,18

never 64:11,13

104:2 171:4

new 14:6 48:14 51:9

news 1:15 94:14

95:14,18 96:25

97:1

nodding 142:9

Nonbacterial

105:25

nonbiodegradable

71:1,2 117:8,13,22

118:1 129:8,18

nonbiologically

159:11

normal 43:9 112:12

normally 105:15

Northeast 188:24

189:2,5,8,13

190:23

Notably 103:15

NOTARY 195:23

note 51:7 196:5

notes 194:8

notice 3:15 106:2

128:20

novel 10:11 109:14

110:13 111:5

novelty 11:2

number 1:14 42:19

50:8 57:1,4 72:22

79:14 86:11

106:20 107:12

108:5 111:5 113:9

113:11,23 114:1

142:4 144:7 145:3

145:4 178:5

182:24,25 191:2

194:2

numbers 87:2

167:12 190:25

Nydegger 13:8,18

nylon 145:9,10

N-i-d-e-g-g-e-r 13:9

N-Y-D 13:12

N-Y-G 13:11

N.W 4:6

O

O 5:1 194:17,17,17

objecting 66:21

objection 7:3,18,24

8:7 10:25 19:13,20

20:14 21:18 22:2

22:10 25:1,18 26:1

27:25 28:4,15

29:25 30:17,24

31:16 32:1,9 33:17

41:25 43:13 47:24

48:4,19 49:8 52:14

53:22 55:2 56:1

64:25 65:8 67:2

68:4 70:2 72:1

74:16 75:22 76:11

76:21 77:8 78:2

79:9,18 80:6,9

81:8,22 83:19

84:15 85:5,13

86:20 88:10,20

90:16 91:11,24

92:17,24 99:15

104:5 105:8

112:17 114:19

117:17 118:8

119:6 120:21

121:2 125:3,12

129:14 133:25

134:13 135:2

136:18 137:2

141:19 143:10

145:13 146:14

149:14 153:19

168:2 171:22

172:15 177:9

178:12 179:8

180:18 182:15

184:20 186:16

187:9,19 188:7,20

189:9 190:13

192:3,18

objections 7:22

objects 8:1,3

observed 192:2,9

obtain 89:12,13

obviously 105:3

occur 104:7,9,10

105:15 137:6

167:8

occurred 103:20

occurs 134:25

162:15 182:13

184:24

offered 109:17,19

109:20

offhand 79:15

officer 97:4

officially 40:15 51:6

okay 8:7,8 16:12

23:5 44:10,16,17

60:16 61:12 70:17

90:20 101:7 109:8

123:16 127:10

132:10 145:4

146:25 155:24

163:18 179:2

oligomeric 153:11

oligomers 130:24

134:4 139:4,9

143:19

omit 6:6

once 55:7 138:24

141:23 142:17

ones 8:13,23,23

19:25 38:18 63:14

63:15 76:5 92:21

110:6 136:6

one-page 94:19

one-year 24:5,7,12

36:1

opaque 173:9

operating 45:21

48:20

opinion 71:6 90:14

105:2 118:12

119:9 120:12

128:13 131:17,22

131:23 132:12,13

133:6 141:15

149:3

opinions 21:12

32:23 103:17

opportunities

113:25

optimum 159:3,4

option 63:10

orange 187:8,11

order 42:3 54:20

89:11 143:2

organic 101:9

organism 105:16

138:24 139:6,9

141:23 142:17

144:14 145:22

organisms 40:23

139:23

organization 51:8

organizations 40:16

origin 158:10

original 69:2 142:13

195:9

ought 41:21

outside 22:1,9 89:17

89:23 105:15

140:25 171:1

191:5,22

overhead 53:2,5

overwhelming

112:24 113:5,20

owned 52:4

owns 58:2 165:12

oxidases 125:15

126:5,6,8,9

oxidation 40:25

41:11 104:9

oxidative 153:10

oxidized 121:23

144:19 148:16

153:25

oxydases 125:8

P

P 5:1 34:11 159:10

161:3 194:17

page 1:8 20:12,22

20:23 36:12 37:7

37:10 39:25 40:5

44:12 57:9 70:14

73:8 82:17 84:3

90:7 103:5,14

113:14 114:1

116:16 118:19

123:6 124:11,12

127:12 130:3

138:2,3,6 145:4,5

149:2 154:11

157:21 158:5

159:19 160:10

163:17,22 164:4

165:20 166:1

167:10,16 170:12

173:17 174:2

175:5 176:21

196:12

pages 19:1 169:5

paid 43:17 59:15

61:18,22,24 62:1,5

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[211]

62:8,13 97:12,14

99:11

paper 23:11,15

63:21 91:6 101:17

101:22 142:3,7

151:24 160:15

170:17 185:10,13

195:9

papers 23:8,9,17

25:4 26:15,17

122:3

paperwork 12:16

paragraph 35:21

40:7,7 70:14 72:25

78:15 79:3 80:13

82:25 85:20 90:2,6

90:12,25 91:12,14

91:16 101:3,20

102:2 103:5,14

106:11 107:1

112:22 113:2

116:15 121:10

127:11,20 130:7

140:3 149:1

154:14 157:17,21

158:5 159:16,22

163:22 164:4

165:21,25 167:9

167:16 170:13

171:11,24 173:4

173:18 175:6,22

178:18 180:3,12

181:14,19

paragraphs 70:13

106:3,7,17

parameters 89:17

89:24 131:7 135:7

part 25:23 27:3

54:23 78:25 104:3

104:12,20 105:7

122:25 124:13

127:18 132:2

140:2 142:19

168:24 169:1

186:1

particles 108:24

particular 40:17

65:16 73:18 86:2

93:6 113:24 115:9

116:16 118:3,20

119:12,20 123:14

124:13

particularly 123:18

parties 7:16 8:10 9:8

12:25 58:12 63:13

69:14

parts 33:13 44:7

131:16,17 132:3

party 13:6

pass 130:25 134:5

passes 188:1

patch 109:8

patent 1:14 9:16,18

9:19 10:15,16,22

14:18 30:13,15,16

30:16 52:4 55:25

56:7,9,16,17,20,21

56:22,24 57:1,4,6

57:10,12,13,14,19

57:21,23 58:4,16

58:17 59:11 60:6

60:11 63:6,23

64:17,20 65:6,11

69:6,8 72:7,17,19

73:1 74:12,21

75:10,18 77:10,23

78:1,5,13,15 79:12

79:13,15,20 80:1

80:11,24 81:2,3,6

81:7,11,13,20,23

81:24 82:1,23

83:20,22 84:9,21

84:25 85:3,4,9,10

85:11,16,19 86:9

86:13,16 87:4,9,10

88:6,13,17 90:22

92:10,19,21 95:22

107:12,13,24

108:5,22 109:25

110:23 144:25

150:19,19,19

164:24,25 165:1,6

165:11,22,22

patents 10:18 56:3,5

58:23 78:3 107:9

108:9,17 111:9

pathway 91:20 92:4

101:18 102:1

136:4 139:18

Pawtucket 51:13

pay 55:11 99:13,20

paying 60:1

pays 59:16,18

PCL 176:23 177:5

177:17

PE 129:15,22

138:19 141:7

147:19

peel 185:15,16 186:2

186:3,11 187:8,11

peer 39:21

peer-review 38:20

peer-reviewed

29:12,18,20 30:5

30:11,22 31:5

34:16,24 35:7,8

106:4,15 113:3

114:17,25 116:25

120:4 121:5 122:1

141:25 146:9

147:3,22 149:10

150:5,10,23

156:22 159:17,21

181:16

pendency 6:14

Penicillium 158:25

Pennsylvania 4:6

penny 60:3

people 60:4 63:17

65:14 82:15

147:15

percent 28:12,18,20

28:21 29:1,2,6,7

29:13,22 30:6,11

30:14,22,25 31:4,7

31:8,25 32:4,8

53:2,8,11,15 55:18

55:20 59:23,24

60:5,8 73:21 76:3

76:24 78:20 79:5,7

82:21 83:3,3,4,5,6

83:9,10,10,18,23

83:25 121:20

150:1 152:24

153:17

percentage 59:20,21

166:15

perform 77:6 97:21

98:2

Performance

188:14

performed 81:11

86:15 142:14

160:4,12 170:24

performing 97:23

period 18:3 63:4

79:16 98:1,1

161:24 163:13

permission 44:6

peroxidase 126:11

peroxidases 125:16

person 47:23 48:1

personal 54:8

personally 62:9

Perspectives 1:11

39:8

pertain 58:22

PET 32:14,16 42:22

42:24 43:3,7,8,11

71:14 73:25 78:11

88:9,11,15 115:13

117:8 146:24

149:16,18,20

petroleum-based

118:22

pH 159:3

PHB 158:10,15,20

158:24 159:8,15

160:5,17,20 161:1

161:2 178:17,25

PHBV 173:4,8,10

phone 96:7

photodegradation

40:25 41:10

phrased 24:19

physical 6:22,25

41:5 131:7 135:7

138:20 141:9

physics 17:7

Ph.D 1:5 5:3 16:18

17:1 195:13 196:1

piece 20:7,7 101:17

101:22

PLA 72:11 76:13

78:19 83:16 84:23

85:1 88:8 166:5,7

167:11 176:23

177:5,17

place 19:23 20:24

40:9,21 91:15

93:11,23 115:18

142:8 156:20

158:3

placed 34:7 89:8

171:17 193:12

plain 117:17

plastic 1:17,19 21:4

28:8,12,13 29:13

29:15,22,24 30:6,8

30:12,23 31:7 32:3

32:7,10 44:2,4

64:4 65:20,24,25

66:1 70:21,22

71:24,25 75:18

84:19 90:18

103:21 109:3

114:10 115:9

116:20 117:4,18

118:22 119:5,10

121:15 122:1,15

126:19 127:6

130:11 131:18

136:18 149:4,8

161:24 162:6,16

167:8 168:8

170:19 172:14

174:4

plastics 1:9,17 2:9

15:23 30:12 34:2,9

34:12 44:15,21

45:18 51:3,5,24

64:23 69:16,20

70:1,3,9 71:9,12

71:13 92:21 93:7

111:14,17,20

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[212]

112:1,5,13,25

113:6,21 114:7,9

114:11,13,15,18

115:1,6,15,25

117:6,10,16,18,20

117:25 118:2,7

119:11 123:3,4

124:7,15,20,21

125:2,11,12,13

129:6 131:12

136:22,25 141:1

147:1,5,17 148:23

149:13 150:8

170:4,8 171:14,16

172:2,9 173:19

175:8 177:5

188:19

plates 109:15

110:13 111:6

please 158:2 189:20

196:5

plus 43:24 81:12

point 6:10,16 17:25

20:24 40:9 89:5,9

130:6,8 138:5

158:3 159:3

165:25 166:2

182:6 184:17

pointing 106:20

108:15 128:5

policies 56:4 58:22

58:25 59:3

policy 52:10 55:23

56:3,15 57:25

58:11

poly 145:6,8

polycaprolactone

109:2 121:14

145:6

polydioxanone

32:13 136:10

polyester 72:11,20

73:20 77:25 124:8

132:16 135:5

144:17,18 146:12

149:17 150:1

polyesters 2:14,17

73:23 77:15,21,24

78:6,8 133:4,5,8

133:10,21 134:8,9

134:12,25 146:11

157:19,23 158:7

178:1,8 179:20,24

185:2

polyether 144:22

polyethylene 1:19

1:22 2:15 43:1

71:14 73:22,24

74:7 115:8,10

117:7 121:23

127:23 128:9

129:6 130:13,15

130:18 132:3,5,19

136:22,25 137:9

137:22 144:20

145:7 147:21,24

148:7 151:19,21

152:6,13,17,19

153:7 154:10,20

154:24 155:2,14

168:21 178:1,9,10

179:3,12

Polyglycolic 136:12

polylactic 31:19,24

32:6 65:14 72:10

72:19,21 75:23,24

77:13,20 78:11,23

79:21 83:4,11,21

136:8 164:22

165:4 168:20

polymer 1:12,13 2:3

2:7,7,10 9:15

10:14,20 11:16

12:10 16:7,8,9,12

16:14,19,22 17:2,5

17:7,8,12,14,17

33:11 35:12 37:19

38:1,7,7 41:1,4

42:24 46:7,18 47:1

48:16 49:3,16 71:1

71:2 72:12,20

77:13,14,20 82:10

82:13 83:13 84:5

85:23 91:9,11,13

91:23,24 92:1,2,11

99:25 101:24

102:6,10 103:12

104:19 105:16

119:14 120:14

138:12,14,15,18

138:22 139:1

140:11,20 141:10

142:18 143:7

157:5,11 164:19

168:14,20 174:18

174:23 178:10

181:15

polymeric 2:4

105:21 153:10

156:18 163:4

polymerized 152:17

polymers 1:10,21,23

2:16,20 14:15

17:12 33:25 34:11

37:11,15 39:7

40:13 47:19 77:16

78:16 100:2,5

105:17 118:13,16

128:8,23 129:18

130:23 131:8

134:3 135:8 136:5

136:17,19 138:9

139:13,20,22

140:3,6 143:2

145:12,25 146:1,2

148:14 152:5

155:12 176:24

178:19 179:19,23

183:6,11 185:3,5

polyolefins 121:17

144:9

polypropylene 1:20

71:14 115:11,12

117:7 129:7

136:21,25 137:9

137:23 173:12

polysaccharides

183:15,23 184:2,7

184:21,23

Polysaccharide-co...

108:23

polystyrene 2:15

115:11 117:7

127:24 129:7

178:1,9,10 179:4

179:12

Polytechnic 48:12

polyurethane 128:9

144:22

polyurethanes

145:9

Polyvinyl 136:14

polyvinylchloride

115:10 117:8

129:7

poly(butylene 145:7

poly(b-hydroxyal...

107:18

Poly(b-hydroxyb...

2:1 157:3,8

poly(ethylene 2:8

145:5 168:15

poly(e-caprolacto...

2:13 176:17,21

Poly(Hydroxybut...

42:16

Poly(lactic 2:8,13

168:15 176:16,20

poly(lactide) 107:19

poly(lactones)

107:18

Poly(3-hydroxybu...

2:18 181:8,12

poly-hydroxy-but...

180:2,14 181:1

Population 1:18

126:18 127:5

portion 36:13 52:12

52:19 59:12,16,18

69:5 93:4 151:21

position 29:13,21

30:6 70:19 71:16

71:22 90:13 98:17

129:10 163:19

164:1

positive 84:24 85:1

149:7

possess 9:24 11:23

14:25

possessing 154:23

possible 23:16 24:2

24:4 55:21 105:11

193:11

possibly 17:24 18:21

24:10,15 25:2

26:14,23 27:11,16

29:4 33:18 37:5

48:24 87:18

121:22 126:2

177:10,10

Potential 146:11

powder 154:23

powders 156:4

PP 129:15,22 138:18

141:7

preceding 49:12

precision 89:12,13

predecessor 46:22

46:24

predicated 180:25

predominantly

108:1

preliminary 171:13

prepared 193:13

preprint 171:12

181:15

presence 195:20

present 38:10 77:16

94:13 171:13

172:1

presented 172:21

presents 94:20

pressure 131:6

135:6,20

pretty 78:9

previously 50:25

51:10 90:21 97:7

100:18 119:20

primarily 65:11

primary 138:15

139:2,14 143:17

143:20

principal 53:18,18

53:25 165:5

principally 165:15

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[213]

prior 51:4,8 94:22

116:12 156:6

175:20

privilege 7:24 8:2

privileged 21:19

probably 6:2 26:25

32:11,13 33:10,13

38:18 50:3 56:10

56:24 78:12 79:3

98:3,10 104:21

114:5 127:1

131:24 140:23

142:12 145:15

151:3,14 153:24

185:24 189:22

192:14

problem 173:15

problematic 168:5

proceeding 5:25

9:17,21 10:13 11:9

11:11 15:10 18:25

19:8 43:18 73:8

116:9,9,11,12

proceedings 7:8,11

10:6,9 15:1 193:17

proceeds 73:5

143:16

process 86:5 92:5

101:20 102:2

104:12,15 105:11

131:2,4,11 133:24

134:1,20,22

135:11 142:8

146:12 152:14

162:7,10 178:22

processes 103:7,23

104:6,20 135:13

processing 2:16

111:15,18,23

112:1,5,12,14

179:19,23

Procter 9:9,10,19

10:2

produce 11:20

65:14 117:4

191:17

produced 9:20 15:1

18:13 111:10,11

131:6,10 134:24

135:10 137:17

153:8

product 14:11,12,19

64:11,14 65:12,16

70:20 75:10 76:15

production 12:15

131:23

products 8:24 40:23

41:7 63:22,25 64:5

64:7,19,23 65:18

66:2,3,9 93:1,2,4

93:24 110:11

131:4 134:23

139:10,14 184:25

185:13

professor 5:17

15:23 16:1 51:20

52:11 54:18,19

55:6,8

professors 55:24

profit 59:25

prohibition 86:3

project 53:16,17,23

projects 53:24

promoted 105:10

promoting 100:1,3

promotion 54:21

55:5

promotions 54:17

proof 22:25 70:8

75:6,18 120:10,13

120:15 133:9

153:15 156:1,22

168:6

proofread 194:19

proper 84:4,11

104:1,14

properties 2:5 17:11

41:5 144:9 162:6

163:14 164:17

proponents 178:25

proposition 31:6

113:2,4,19 115:1,5

115:14 119:4,17

119:23 128:25

129:9 134:11

142:24 144:7

147:13

prosecution 60:2

protein 159:1

proteinase 125:18

125:25 126:5

165:10,17,18

proteinases 125:15

protocol 74:9,11

88:24 89:10

prove 76:9 84:18,19

149:4 151:19,20

168:7

proved 149:21,23

proven 90:19

provide 94:2 118:22

119:1 153:15

163:12,20 164:2,9

171:15

provided 67:24

126:25 189:7

provides 94:3

Pseudomonas

158:17

Public 5:9 195:23

publication 22:24

26:6 27:7 31:6

32:15 34:24 38:22

38:23,25 39:17,20

41:18 106:4,5

107:6 113:3

144:10

publications 19:4

23:13 24:9,11 25:5

25:16 27:13 31:20

33:4,9,21,24 35:4

38:16 106:8 107:4

108:16 114:6,23

114:24,25 115:4,7

156:23

publish 104:25

published 33:16

35:19 39:4 47:22

150:15,21

pull 50:4

pullulan 109:2

Pulverized 1:25

155:13

punctuation 194:21

purchased 61:19,21

pure 76:23,25

purified 158:23

purpose 50:16,24

86:18 112:11

170:14,17 171:3

purposes 84:9

pursuant 3:15

put 24:7 82:15 144:3

165:24

PVC 71:14

P-R-A-M-I-L-A

147:23

p.m 193:17

P3HB 181:13,22,25

182:21

Q

quantity 114:15

question 6:14,14 8:1

22:5,5 26:2 30:3,3

30:20 33:7,7 34:23

36:21 47:8 57:11

76:14 79:1 85:6,14

85:15 100:13

116:3 118:10,11

123:22 124:25

127:20 140:2

150:3 155:23

161:7 163:24,25

165:2 167:12

182:11

questions 111:12

123:11 163:21,23

164:3,9 193:1,16

quickly 78:24 83:12

quite 66:1,7

quote 32:18 172:1,4

quoted 36:10

R

R 5:1 147:23 194:17

194:17,17,17

radiological 75:7

90:9,15,23 148:10

148:18 149:11

150:6,11 151:17

159:23 161:23

162:5,9,14,18,22

166:18 169:15

171:6,25

raises 54:18

range 48:22 60:17

60:21 159:3,4

Ranking 2:9 170:4,8

rapid 159:10

rate 53:2,5 80:18

83:7,15,25 86:5

139:23 166:4,5,9

rates 164:22 165:4

171:16

ratio 77:16 154:24

190:7

raw 189:7,10,12,14

189:16,19 190:17

190:18,20,22,24

190:25 191:3

reach 82:20 161:4

reaction 101:18

102:1 135:25

reactions 18:13

40:24 41:10

105:20

Reactive 2:12

176:15,19

read 23:17 24:11

25:3 26:15 27:12

70:15 75:5 77:11

85:9 89:21 104:23

126:16,21 127:8

137:25 146:7,9,22

147:3,22 154:5,17

155:16 188:9,13

192:6 195:3

readily 178:21

reads 27:18 173:18

real 111:17 171:21

190:25 191:3

realistic 141:20

143:5 144:1

really 45:10 55:15

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[214]

66:21 79:10 82:8

87:7 126:9 140:25

150:3 152:20

184:12

reason 28:3 86:2

196:7,12

reasonable 136:3

155:6

reasons 145:19

recalcitrant 139:19

recalcitrants 86:7

recall 13:23,24,25

107:6 126:2,4

147:8,12 163:11

165:19

receive 54:5,8 59:10

59:12 60:8,10

189:12,14,20

receives 53:15 93:21

Recess 121:12 193:4

recharacterize

52:22

recite 118:19 180:24

recognition 173:19

175:7

recognize 39:11,12

46:9 57:6

recollection 20:19

68:8 122:12,21

123:13 157:14

163:8

recommended

98:16,21 151:18

record 13:13,15,16

34:4,5 66:15,16

88:3 195:5 196:9

recovered 173:8,11

recyclable 66:1,7

recycling 21:7 25:13

27:5 146:12

redolens 1:24

155:13 156:16

refer 69:11 101:4

177:17

reference 20:25

36:1 78:25 80:23

85:10 114:1

119:19 130:9

133:1 134:15,16

166:2 182:3,4,5,7

182:13,19 183:1

183:21

referenced 159:18

159:22 181:24

185:3

references 92:6

113:23 159:12,19

159:20,24

referred 99:2

119:20 131:2

134:20

referring 15:22

34:20 35:2 43:5

44:8,14 58:10 90:1

90:17 92:2 98:25

113:15 114:2

133:1 134:12

144:25 178:25

refers 82:3 124:15

135:6

reflected 153:5

reflection 153:3

161:17,18

refresh 122:21

123:13 157:14

163:7

regard 14:2 27:3

80:20 93:9 100:19

129:11 165:23

regarding 58:16

116:18

regardless 90:22

registers 8:6

regularly 96:19

reimbursed 97:13

rejected 38:22

related 9:13,21 10:2

12:2 15:9 50:2

51:23 56:3,4,11,18

58:1 64:17 66:23

86:13 98:4 121:6

relationship 56:17

96:4 98:13

relative 160:17,25

170:18

relatively 83:7

166:6,9

relayed 42:2,4

release 101:14

102:10,15 152:18

152:20,21

relevance 77:8

reliable 89:18,25

reliance 166:21

relied 79:20

rely 119:17 129:2,5

169:8

remainder 53:8,12

145:16 153:3

161:4

remaining 77:1

remarkable 156:9

remember 8:12,13

8:21,23 9:6 10:8

14:4,5 16:20 17:25

18:2 31:23 33:19

33:20 59:6 79:14

109:21 122:24

148:4 151:7,22

169:24,25

remiss 124:5 136:2

remnants 173:10

remuneration 54:9

Rensselaer 48:12

repayment 61:20

rephrase 30:19

36:21

replenish 6:17

replicated 23:20

report 1:8 10:5 11:8

11:20,23,25 12:19

15:13,14,18 18:24

18:24 19:8,14

20:23 21:10 22:7

22:16,21 23:2

24:25 26:7 27:8,17

32:21 37:7,8,9,10

43:2 70:14 71:3

75:20 82:18 84:3

84:10,11 85:21

86:12 89:2,7 90:7

90:25 92:16 101:4

103:5 106:2

108:15 111:13

112:23 116:16

118:18 121:11

122:9,23 126:22

126:24 137:16

148:5,9,19 155:18

160:3 188:17

193:14

reported 86:16

147:15

reporter 20:21

31:21 40:4 130:5

138:5 158:2

165:24 194:1

reporting 88:7

127:16 147:14

reports 15:1

represent 7:17

representation 75:9

95:5 140:5

represented 13:5,19

representing 7:13

12:24 195:17

represents 13:21

reproduce 191:13

requesting 88:3

require 56:8 196:6

required 6:3 8:4

41:22 161:24

162:19,23

requirement 6:12

42:9

requiring 184:6

research 1:12,13

18:15 44:2,4,9,9

44:13,14,16,18

45:6,13,15 46:7,12

46:16,18 47:1,19

47:21,22 48:16

49:3,16 52:7,13,18

52:19 53:3,12,13

53:21 54:12,22,22

54:23 56:12,19

58:2 60:23 61:10

62:16,21 142:13

148:2

Researchers 158:9

Reserve 16:24

residual 31:10,14,15

31:25

respect 21:22 33:2

42:24 94:21

116:19 132:14,24

136:2 140:8

145:24 185:2

respectively 83:10

158:19 174:8

176:3

respiration 91:17

Respirometric 2:3

163:3

respond 8:7

responded 75:24

Respondent's 15:15

15:17 34:1,8 39:6

46:5 49:14 57:3

94:15 95:13 103:2

115:24 122:14

127:4 137:21

152:3 155:10

157:7 163:2

164:16 168:13,19

170:3 174:21

176:14 177:24

179:17 181:6

183:4

response 118:10

responsible 52:6

98:24 105:21

rest 49:22 111:25

restrict 78:5,7

restricted 134:8

restroom 6:17

result 72:12 93:18

118:5 156:5 160:9

177:18

resulted 150:9

resulting 101:14

162:7

results 75:2 89:14

93:12 149:7,17

152:15 160:24

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[215]

161:8,10,12,16,17

162:10 167:15,19

167:22 171:13

173:3 188:24

retained 10:6 193:6

retire 48:3

retired 48:6 151:15

return 21:4 24:20

25:10,24 26:18

28:8 31:18 32:5,8

33:15 36:6 41:23

42:10 69:17,21

70:9 75:11 177:6

177:19 179:5,13

183:23 184:18

185:6,11,17 187:5

returned 181:2

returns 28:13 29:14

29:23 30:7,13,23

31:1,8 180:15

181:25 182:21

reveal 117:15

161:23 162:5,9,14

162:18,22

revealed 79:16

review 1:10,17 19:5

38:17,20 39:7,21

40:18 54:15 68:18

122:15 123:1,21

127:15,17 147:5

147:10

reviewed 19:24 20:6

122:4 127:18

188:17,21 189:1

193:9,13

reviewer 41:16

reviewers 38:19,21

42:1,8 98:15

reviewing 156:24

reviews 39:2 41:19

147:11

revisions 20:9

Rich 175:12

Richard 47:6

right 8:22 16:1 28:5

31:25 32:23 35:14

35:23 36:8 37:12

42:25 44:3 45:4,24

46:20 47:14,17,19

50:10 52:8,20

53:13 55:19 59:11

65:7,18 66:8 72:5

73:25 74:15,25

75:3,14,16,21 76:5

77:3,7,17,21,22

78:1,6,8,20,24

79:7,17,23 80:2,3

80:19 81:14 82:21

83:18,24 84:7

85:25 86:7,16 87:4

88:19 89:9 90:3,4

90:10,15,23 91:3

92:19 102:5 106:1

106:7,10,12 107:8

107:10 111:3,19

123:22 135:17

143:9 148:24

149:8 153:12,18

153:22 154:25

156:25 159:25

160:7,13 163:9

164:22 165:16

166:18 167:14

168:9,25 170:12

170:15,21 171:1

171:18,19 174:2

175:2 176:24

177:2,20 178:11

178:22 180:1,5,6

181:14,19 182:8

182:12 183:2,16

183:19 187:7

188:19 192:6

rights 58:2 59:8

ring 149:20

rings 149:22,24

RJ 146:10

role 173:20 175:8

roughly 38:15 50:19

51:16

routine 7:24 172:2,9

172:14,17,20,22

royalties 59:10,12

59:13,15,17,19,24

60:11 61:15

royalty 52:2,3 59:21

rule 166:13,16

rules 8:4 196:6

run 4:13 189:4

S

S 5:1

salary 51:20 54:5,15

55:1,4,18,20

sample 82:20 167:8

168:1,7

samples 64:14 153:8

172:25

satisfaction 75:19

184:6

satisfactory 167:25

satisfy 28:22,24 29:2

29:7,9

saw 113:1 122:19

saying 21:23 23:12

23:22 36:19 65:5

80:16 83:16,23,25

84:5,8,12,16,17,18

103:23 189:22

says 34:11 35:7,11

36:6,9 82:24 117:6

117:12 121:18

131:18 132:8,17

134:20,21 141:7

141:23 143:11,25

153:4 154:7

178:19 182:10

scale 170:18

scheme 173:22

175:10

science 100:3

103:25

Sciences 115:22

scientific 21:8 32:19

32:25 33:3,8,9

104:1 112:24

113:3,5,20 114:23

114:24,25 116:18

117:2 129:25

scientifically 149:4

scientist 104:11

186:10

scientists 35:13

36:15,18,20,22,25

129:10

Seal 40:18

seat 14:13

seawater 158:12

second 7:22 13:14

72:22 77:14,15

82:25 83:13

109:14 116:17

127:20 138:3

160:10,14,22,25

165:21,25 167:9

170:13 173:4

secrete 101:8 140:10

secreted 139:6

144:14 145:22

secretion 40:23

section 41:13,21

113:16,17,19

140:1 145:17

160:9

secure 56:7,9

sediment 158:12

see 19:18 23:19

24:12 25:5 26:17

27:13 35:25 36:13

40:2 54:25 55:7

60:3,4 66:25 73:4

75:5,9 78:17,24,25

84:22 88:6,7,13

92:5 95:22 116:6

116:20 123:6

137:15 142:19

146:4,6 150:18

155:7,17 157:25

159:12 160:2

166:20 172:4

192:10,12,19,21

seeing 146:16

seen 25:14 39:16

64:11,16 66:18,22

67:16,20,23 68:1

92:7 116:3,13

119:13 120:17,19

120:23 121:9

122:22 125:19

126:14 137:14

177:10

segments 107:19

selling 8:24

senior 48:1

sense 133:11

sent 38:19,23 92:18

92:18

sentence 19:11 20:2

20:2 27:18 32:18

35:12 89:4,19

116:20,23 127:21

128:6,13 132:22

140:18 142:16

143:23 144:4,12

154:17 160:11,14

160:22,25 164:8

175:21,22 176:22

180:12

separate 104:6,14

195:8

sequences 160:19

series 98:14 128:24

165:8

Seriously 102:24

serve 173:20 175:8

service 54:22

set 145:14

seven 7:10

sewage 158:12,19

share 36:16,20,23

189:20

Shaw 147:4

shear 82:14

sheet 91:6 195:8

196:6

shift 93:1

shoed 166:4

short 67:10 85:23

94:19 130:24

134:3

shorten 44:8

shorter 101:14

105:13

shortly 128:17

short-chain 118:4

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[216]

118:12,15

show 19:16 39:3

102:7 154:11

161:3

showed 158:10

173:13

showing 87:20

91:21 177:11

shown 31:9 75:2

shows 83:11

sic 57:2

signatory 54:2

signed 58:12,13

significant 103:16

192:16

significantly 153:7

signs 173:13

similar 26:11,21,24

26:25 27:9 89:13

95:12 106:18

156:17

simple 30:20

simulations 159:5

simulator 171:15

173:8

simulators 173:6,12

single 25:5 106:14

163:12,20 164:1,8

SIPIT 99:22

sir 34:14

sit 107:5

sitting 92:8

six 28:19 38:19

size 51:14,16 105:16

skim 19:3

skip 42:21

slice 187:2

sliced 186:21,23

187:1,15

slightly 156:7

slow 86:6 139:23

166:6

sludge 158:19

small 139:8 148:5

151:20 153:25

173:7,10

Smaller 51:18

society 99:25 100:1

128:24

soda 14:20

soil 1:22 78:16,23

82:25 83:12,17

152:6 153:4

158:11,14,18

164:21 165:4,10

165:19,23 166:3

167:6

sole 158:16

solid 143:2,3 173:21

175:9

Solo 63:18,19

Solutia 68:22,24,25

69:5

Solutions 45:16

Solvent-Free 2:19

183:5,10

someone's 105:2

somewhat 156:9

173:13

soon 109:23

sorry 31:23 36:21

37:9

sort 11:3 12:15

61:20 190:24

191:14

source 128:19,21

129:2,4,16,16

130:21 131:1

133:17 134:6

138:14 139:1

141:25 142:11,19

142:23 146:17

151:22 154:8,18

158:16,21 191:18

sources 139:8

142:12,25

Southeastern 17:19

sparse 156:13

speak 99:5

speaking 41:3

species 191:7

specific 7:12 22:4

34:21 43:6 68:8

76:14 101:24

102:9,17 106:11

106:13 107:6,7

113:1,18 120:13

120:15 121:7

122:12 123:24

125:9 128:19

154:15 192:25

specifically 8:5

17:14 42:7 62:22

64:1 91:8,22

104:21 106:24

112:11 113:13

116:22 129:5

142:1,4 160:2

specification 79:20

90:9,14 149:3

specifications 93:13

93:14

specifies 164:3

specify 41:22 77:23

85:16

spell 126:16

spelling 194:20

spent 53:12

spinoff 95:2

spin-out 68:23

split 53:1 59:24 60:4

spoke 99:9,10

spoken 99:7

sponsor 45:12,14

sponsored 54:23

60:23 61:10 99:22

spot 177:23

spun 67:9,12

Stability 2:16

179:19,24

stabilizers 139:21

stage 105:11

stand 27:23 42:24

114:25 115:5,14

142:23 146:21

164:12 167:19

177:1 180:7

181:21 183:18

standard 40:16 94:4

166:21 169:13

182:20

standards 40:19

stands 31:6 113:19

Starch 8:19 9:2 12:8

12:13,14 14:2,24

start 24:1 26:22

28:6,11 72:10

80:19 129:15

started 37:16

starting 34:22

145:20,21

starts 132:2 138:25

142:18

state 90:7 103:14

182:4 184:13

stated 28:11 35:5

73:19 129:1

153:22 154:15,16

164:7 191:25

192:7

statement 6:6,7

27:21 52:22 71:9

71:11 116:17

120:17 124:6

128:7 155:1 172:9

173:22 174:9

175:11,15 176:7

177:1,4 178:24

179:3 180:7,10

183:18

states 118:25 120:7

120:11,16,18,20

121:1,8 188:3,17

stating 85:22

statistically 192:16

statistics 189:4

stenographic 196:8

Stephen 1:5 5:3,10

34:11 195:13

196:1

steps 130:14 132:4

138:10 140:4,4,5

stereochemical 2:2

157:4,10 160:19

stereochemistry

160:5

stereoisomers 2:1

157:3,9 160:17

161:1

Steve 96:1,2,5,14

98:6,8,12,12,14,19

98:21,24 99:2,10

stimulate 191:20

stimulates 191:16

stores 14:21

strain 118:21 119:4

119:14,20

strains 118:25

119:18,19,21,24

120:6,10,16 121:7

156:11 158:14,16

Street 3:11 51:11

strength 82:1,3,4

stress 103:12

strictly 41:3

stringent 137:4

strong 81:25 82:10

structure 102:8,20

102:21

structures 91:6,7,16

91:19,21 101:19

102:1

student 101:15

181:17

studied 47:11

152:18 161:2

studies 2:11 174:19

174:24 177:10

study 2:1 76:19

82:19 121:6

153:15 154:21

155:4,5 156:6

157:4,9 161:19

164:21 165:3,5,5

165:13 166:17

167:16 169:9,12

170:14,23,25

171:5,11 192:7

studying 152:20

sublicense 63:10

sublicensed 63:11

submissions 38:16

submitted 38:16

subset 114:10

125:22

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[217]

substance 147:8

substantive 21:10

32:21

substituted-poly(...

108:2

substrate 128:10

130:15 132:5

189:24 190:8,11

190:13,14,15

successfully 158:23

succinate 145:7,7

suffice 79:3

suits 10:2

sulfidogenic 139:16

summarization

167:14

summary 104:4

123:1 160:9,24

161:10,11,14,15

summation 73:9,15

supplied 62:20

64:13 68:7 75:6

79:12 188:22

189:16 190:18,20

190:22

supply 6:17 62:16

support 61:13 81:11

106:5 149:6

supported 154:3

supporter 100:15

supports 113:4

sure 13:15 16:11

19:1,3 35:20 37:22

38:4 45:23 50:2,11

50:20 55:19 57:9

59:4 65:19 69:2

72:18 78:9 89:22

109:11 116:7

124:6 125:19,24

126:14 140:22

150:16 151:12

154:12 167:1

177:12 182:9,9

185:21 191:21

192:5

surface 101:9 110:6

138:12,17,18,22

138:24,25 140:19

140:20 141:11,12

142:17 143:3,7

173:10,14

surfaces 129:22

136:21 137:8

138:19 141:8

susceptibility

157:18,22 158:6

susceptible 70:20,22

70:23 71:18,18

sustain 162:20,24

Swift 128:22

sworn 5:4

Symposium 128:24

syndiotactic 108:1

synergistic 135:12

synergistically

117:3

synopsis 153:1,2

155:23

synthesis 2:19 16:22

183:6,10

synthetic 1:20,23

128:22 139:20

146:11,25 152:4

153:10 155:11

system 38:20 70:6

systems 109:15

S.W 3:11

T

T 5:10 194:17,17

take 5:10 6:11,15

15:12 18:25 20:11

24:5 25:23 33:22

42:13 46:2 49:10

56:24 57:1 67:18

70:13,18 72:7 86:9

89:3 90:6 94:18

95:17,19 101:3,17

106:23 123:10,15

127:8 129:10

131:17 132:1

139:20 142:8

143:4 152:2

155:16,22 163:7

163:16 164:14

168:11 170:1

175:14,16 177:15

177:22 178:5

193:2

taken 54:25 194:8

takes 29:12,21 30:5

40:20 91:15

talk 87:21,25 96:7

talked 25:22

talking 29:16,16,18

44:20 45:17 46:19

63:16 79:24 133:4

133:22,23 134:9

135:11 192:24

teaching 54:21

technological 123:2

Technologies 8:21

14:14,25 15:2,11

Teflon 71:14

tell 5:4 8:13 20:3

23:5 41:13,20

49:18,23 72:15

77:25 114:11

128:6 153:2

159:20 164:23

Telles 95:1

telling 20:2

temperature 131:6

135:6,20 159:4

ten 5:21,22 97:20

tend 82:15

Tennessee 151:15

tensile 82:2,3

tenured 16:1,3

terephthalate 43:1

73:22,24 74:8

115:10

term 24:9,23 25:6

25:15 26:4 27:14

35:5 41:22 44:13

66:19,20 69:10

80:23 114:12,22

184:4

terminology 24:19

terms 51:25 59:5

80:17,18 91:17

111:16

test 2:10 76:10,15

77:6 79:13,15,19

80:1 81:15,15

82:19 83:17 84:6

84:13,19 85:23

86:12,13,15,22,24

87:3,3,6,20 88:15

89:10,12,14,15

148:20,24 149:7

149:12,20 150:2,7

150:12 151:18

154:16 156:2,5

160:4,12 161:11

161:12,17,20,23

162:5,9,14,18,22

163:12,20 164:1,8

166:21,23,25

167:1,3,8,19 168:1

168:7,10,25

170:20 174:18,22

187:23 188:24

189:5 191:25

192:7,15

tested 80:2,15 87:17

testified 5:5 7:5,9

9:12 10:8 11:2

13:6

testify 6:4 7:2 9:13

10:12,18,23 11:17

12:9,12

testimony 10:10

22:3 32:2 55:3

61:25 65:9 72:2

76:22 94:22 119:7

135:3 182:16

195:5

testing 74:14,17,22

74:24 75:2,7 78:16

79:12 81:1,2,5,9

81:10,10,12,21,21

82:1,2 83:1 88:8

88:18 90:9,15,23

93:11 103:17

148:19 149:12

150:6,12 156:23

159:23 160:3

165:23 166:3,18

169:16 171:6

172:1

tests 31:9 89:13,16

89:23 90:1 167:24

168:4 169:19

170:24 171:21

188:18 189:1,2,8

189:13,24 191:2

192:25

text 20:22

textile 17:22

thank 52:24 87:1,2

95:3 101:7 128:5

146:25

theory 154:2,3

thereof 108:24

196:6

Thermal 2:16

179:19,23

thermoplastic

124:19

thermoplastics

178:20

thermoset 124:7,15

124:21

theses 26:8

thin 186:21 187:15

thing 11:3 55:15

57:8 79:6 101:17

119:13 134:25

142:24 154:6

168:7 191:14,19

things 18:3

think 8:21 11:1

13:10 23:20 41:18

43:16 49:4 55:17

55:19 58:10,11

60:20 62:14,17

69:4,5 75:24 78:9

81:23,24,24 90:21

95:7 99:20 100:13

100:18 107:21,23

110:9 115:12,13

117:21 121:19,21

124:19 128:1

132:8 133:4 134:9

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[218]

134:14 136:3,6

140:11,13 141:20

141:22,24 142:3,7

144:2,3 146:25

147:10 148:3,5

150:1,9 156:7

169:14 175:19

179:15 182:12,18

187:12,15,25

191:4

third 157:17,21

159:16 171:11,24

175:22

thought 41:13

three 54:19 60:4

98:9 167:4

thriving 156:13

time 6:16 18:3 28:16

33:21 44:8 50:18

50:19 51:4 60:1,12

60:15,16 67:10

87:9,10,17 104:7

123:15 126:3

150:18 156:4

161:24 163:13

167:2,21 168:3

169:14 172:7,19

193:8

times 5:20,22 9:3

96:13 98:11

title 40:5 138:3

146:22 166:1

167:10,17 175:6

175:23 176:22

180:4,13 194:3

today 7:2 28:2 29:11

29:20 30:4 37:2,3

62:18,19 92:8,8

107:5 164:12

167:20 173:25

174:12,13 175:18

176:10 177:1

180:7 183:18

193:12

Tokiwa 129:3,5

142:3,24

told 23:17 24:11

25:3 26:15 27:12

69:19

Tom 110:7

total 46:1 52:25 63:4

70:6 77:2

totally 119:14

toughness 82:8,9

toxic 139:22 162:11

163:14

Trade 1:1 3:1,9 4:3

4:5 5:8,25 67:22

68:3 194:9

training 16:8,12,15

transcript 20:24

40:10 89:6,8 130:6

158:3 165:25

194:6,7,20 195:4,9

transdermal 109:7

transfer 143:7

transform 71:23

129:21 136:24

137:8

transformation 91:7

129:17 130:1

transportation

99:13

treated 21:3 28:7,12

29:13,15,22,23

30:6,8,12,23 31:7

treating 131:24

treatment 130:12

131:19

tree 186:14,17,19

187:2

Trends 1:10 39:8

tried 171:3

Troy 48:14

true 19:7 27:20

28:12 36:2,3 57:10

143:20 165:17

166:19 173:22,25

174:10,12 175:11

175:18 195:5

trunk 186:14,17,19

truth 5:4,5,5 6:5

truthfully 6:4

turn 39:25 121:10

184:19

turned 173:6

Twice 9:5

two 13:6 17:8 20:6

21:11 32:22 40:6

45:1 50:1 54:17

55:17 62:2 72:23

78:16 85:2 97:25

103:18,23 104:2,3

104:6,15 111:4,8

130:14 132:3,4

153:17 156:10

174:15,16 184:6

186:4 193:7

two-page 95:17

two-thousand 60:14

type 110:11

types 18:7,13

typically 70:5

114:13 140:9

171:17

T1 158:18

U

U 44:1,14 48:7,8

51:21 52:7,11

60:22 74:14 107:9

164:25 165:11

ultimate 138:16

139:10,19

UML 1:12,14 46:7

49:16 86:14 94:14

UML-7645 74:25

81:10,13,15 87:3

87:24 88:4,25

UML.EDU 1:15

95:14,18

unclear 150:13

undergo 117:25

118:2

undergrad 17:16,21

underlying 81:1

87:24 88:4 111:10

165:6

understand 6:2,8

21:23 22:12 39:3

43:2 52:10 69:11

72:8,9 74:9,20

78:19 83:22 84:4

85:21 86:11 88:17

103:22 155:25

165:13 166:17

understanding 6:4

understood 103:25

114:12 131:12

unidentified 156:10

union 55:16,17

unique 119:15

United 118:25 120:7

120:10,16,18,20

120:25 121:8

188:3

universe 35:3 79:25

125:22 145:11

university 15:24

16:23,24 17:18,19

34:13 46:1 52:5,20

53:6,7,21 54:14

55:9,23 56:7,8,14

56:21,22,23 57:15

57:18,22,23 58:2,4

58:14,20,22 59:7

59:14,15,16,18,22

59:23 61:18,20,21

69:7,12

university's 69:9

150:19

unqualified 21:2

27:19

untreated 117:18,20

updated 49:11

urging 67:17

use 6:16 21:8,13,15

22:1,8,9,17 24:21

26:17 32:18 33:4,9

33:13,14 44:13

69:10 75:7 79:19

84:6 88:18 90:23

112:23 114:14

129:4 156:23

160:6 166:18,23

169:12,15 171:5,8

174:14 184:4

188:3

uses 25:9 65:22

108:24

USPTO 92:12,14

utilization 128:23

130:21 133:17

utilized 139:7 159:6

utilizing 138:13

U.S 119:1,21,22,25

188:13

V

Vague 7:18 10:25

32:9 56:1 70:2

112:17 187:19

validated 89:16,17

89:24

validation 187:18

187:22 188:3,11

validity 187:22

Valtech 110:8

value 159:2

values 166:12,15

Van 40:17

variable 163:16

Variables 2:2 157:5

157:10

varied 48:21,23

varies 34:18,25 35:6

35:13 36:17,24

60:18

various 40:11

157:24 158:8

170:19

Vasile 144:8

vast 52:13,17 112:20

114:14

Verde 45:9,15

verification 187:18

187:24,25 188:4

188:10

versicolor 156:12

version 49:11,12

versus 20:5 129:12

129:12

Verticillium 156:12

view 36:16,23 105:7

112:14 117:23

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[219]

131:15 134:8

161:16 164:12

Virginia 4:14

virtually 112:12

volume 154:24

193:8

W

want 7:25 19:2 43:4

44:23 57:7 59:9

72:16 88:2 89:21

94:13 109:9 118:9

123:12 128:6

131:16,17 146:6

148:12 149:21

155:7

wanted 42:2 46:21

56:7,9 70:5 123:17

Washington 3:12

4:8 128:25

wasn't 31:10 126:25

137:17 190:20

191:2

waste 1:17 122:1,15

130:11 131:18,24

173:21 175:9

water 6:17 131:5

134:23

way 6:23 28:3 41:15

55:9 62:5 133:12

136:15 153:2

161:9,13,15,25

weathered 172:25

173:5

website 50:5

week 38:17

weight 73:21 83:6

83:11 108:1 118:4

139:7 143:8,9,13

143:14 148:15

153:23,24 156:21

162:6 163:14

165:15 168:4

169:5,10 171:10

173:15

went 29:1 97:9

140:11

weren't 84:25

100:24 171:2

190:17 191:4

Western 16:24

we'll 6:12 7:21

15:21 25:21 27:2

28:11 33:22,23

39:5 42:18 46:4

49:12,13 56:16

57:2 69:10 79:1

87:21 128:18

176:13

we're 15:14 29:18

30:18 42:21 44:12

79:24 83:25 85:2

88:3 106:24 146:5

we've 14:22 18:22

34:7,8 63:6 86:10

106:3 157:13

158:4 168:18

whatsoever 10:2

54:9 55:13

widely 116:18 117:2

wish 6:11

witness 1:4 9:4 34:7

61:24 62:11

111:11 196:1

Wolf 4:13

woods 186:22 187:3

word 23:22,22 24:1

24:1,2,2 33:20

wording 19:24

words 66:12 80:11

119:18 120:9

174:16 184:4

work 56:17 70:4

97:8,10 98:22

117:3 123:21

124:1 125:21

137:12 152:14

worked 47:21

125:18 126:1,7

Workman 13:8,18

works 88:16 122:1

world 22:1 111:17

171:1,21

wouldn't 29:9 39:22

65:20 134:10

135:20 136:6

178:15

write 32:17 34:23

35:9 91:5,10,15

92:5 102:20 103:6

149:2 170:17

171:12 174:3,13

175:21 176:23

179:9 183:15

writes 123:1

writing 58:6 179:11

written 10:1 34:16

35:4,20 58:12,13

58:21 59:3 61:18

140:14 175:12

181:16 184:17

wrong 77:12 79:4

85:22 87:2 90:8

95:7,9,22 132:13

148:22 169:3

wrote 32:23 33:20

35:16,18 36:16,23

47:16 122:9,22

126:21 137:15

155:17 172:7,19

174:15,17 175:10

175:20 176:4,7,13

177:4 179:2

wt 166:9,14

X

X 1:2

Y

Y 13:10

year 21:6 24:5 25:8

25:12,22 28:10,17

29:14,23 30:7 31:3

41:24 42:11 45:25

48:17,25 49:1,7,19

50:12 55:14 60:17

60:18,21 69:22

70:11 72:4 75:13

76:1,7,15 77:7

79:22 81:16 87:14

96:16 98:10

114:20 161:21

168:8 177:8,20

179:6,13 180:16

181:3 182:2,11,12

182:14,23 183:25

185:7,12,19,22,25

186:2,3,8,20,24

187:1,6,14

years 45:1 55:17

62:20,23,25 63:1,5

97:20,25 121:21

139:20 153:17

174:15,16 186:4

193:7

year-long 79:19

yield 82:13 190:8,9

190:11,12

Ying 122:1

York 48:14

Z

Zee 40:17

Zero 96:15,17

Zheng 122:1 123:1

zone 141:2

$

$1,000 97:16

$100 43:24

$150,000 51:22

$200,000 48:24

$28,000 60:13

$30,000 48:23

$5,000 60:21 62:2

$70,000 45:25

$7500 43:21

0

0234754 111:7

06/30/2010 1:15

94:16

1

1 1:8 15:15,18 18:23

19:12 20:11,13,18

20:22 21:17,24

22:7,15,20 23:3,18

23:20 24:6 27:17

27:24 28:23 29:3,8

32:17 37:10 73:5

75:20 77:10,16,16

89:8 92:16 131:13

136:1,2,3,16

138:11

1.5 95:8

1.7 61:7 63:3

10 1:17 60:8 73:6

74:20 115:21,25

118:9 127:16

138:2,6 142:6,7

145:3,4 166:4

173:17

100 29:2,6,13,21

30:6,11,14,22,25

31:4,7,8,25 32:4,7

53:8 76:3 83:3,3,4

100% 166:7

1001 51:13

103 1:16

11 1:17 40:18 75:3

76:6 78:14,22

79:16 81:3,20

82:24,24 83:11

86:11,19 88:12

89:2,3,4,5,7,19

122:15 127:16

115 1:17

11808 4:13

12 1:18 40:18 73:1,3

73:19 80:13 127:3

127:5

122 1:17

127 1:18 173:11

13 1:19 40:20

137:20,22

137 1:19

14 1:20 20:22 41:11

78:20 79:5,7 83:5

83:18,23,25

121:21 148:25

152:4,16,18 154:8

156:6,18

14C 1:21,24 75:7

90:9,14,23 148:24

149:8 151:17

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
McCarthy, Ph.D.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al. 6/27/2014

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

[220]

152:6 153:6,14

154:18 155:13

156:2,25 159:23

160:7 161:23

162:5,9,14,18,22

166:18 169:15

171:5,25

14CO2 1:22,24

152:6 153:6

155:12

14% 166:8

1439 42:17

15 1:8,23 82:17

155:8,11

1500 169:5

1501 169:5

152 1:20

155 1:23

157 2:1

16 2:1 84:3 157:8,13

158:5,13

161 176:21

163 2:3

164 2:5

168 2:7

17 2:3 70:13,14,15

70:16,19 163:3

170 2:9

174 2:10

176 2:12

177 2:14

179 2:15

17989 158:17

18 2:5 164:15,17

166:2

181 2:17

183 2:19

19 2:7 82:24 168:12

168:14,20

193 1:6

1987 16:4

199 30:13,16 63:23

65:6,11 69:8 82:23

84:21 86:9 88:17

90:22 92:10,21

108:18 165:6,22

1991 38:5,8

1992 157:6

1993 47:3 144:10

1995 107:13,24

174:16

2

2 1:9 33:23 34:2,9

36:16,23 106:21

113:9,11,23 114:1

127:11 130:3

138:13 167:16

182:24,25

2.5 95:7

20 2:9 62:23,25 63:5

118:18,19 170:2,4

20-year 63:4

2000 38:14

2001 98:3

20024 3:12

2003 35:18,19

2006 108:5

2007 50:14

2007/2008 50:19

2008 49:6,20 147:6

2009 115:23

2011 39:5 45:2

48:18 50:21,25

51:2,7 60:11 98:3

148:2

20124 4:14

2013 60:12

2014 3:7 194:4

196:2

20580 4:8

21 2:10 174:20,22

22 2:12 101:3,20

176:13,15

23 2:14 177:25

178:5

24 2:15 90:7,25 91:2

91:12,14,16 92:2

144:8 149:2

179:16,18

243 124:12

25 2:17 73:9 83:10

103:5 106:7,11,17

107:2 181:7

26 2:19 183:3,5

27 3:7 103:14 106:7

106:11,17 107:1

116:16 194:4

196:2

29 39:5 118:19

293 173:17,18

294 163:17,22 164:4

3

3 1:10 39:5,7 74:22

138:15 145:8

158:5

3/14/12 1:16 95:15

3:15 193:17

30 38:15,15 59:24

60:5 97:20 166:14

30-35 159:4

31 133:1

333 51:11

34 1:9

3432 154:12

360 113:14

364 28:21 29:1

365 29:5

366 29:1,6

37 70:13,15,16,19

112:22 113:2

370 114:2

3726 145:5

38,000 159:2

39 1:10

4

4 1:11 37:7,10 42:19

46:6 49:2 60:21

138:16 145:10

152:24

400 3:11

433 128:24

45 78:20 79:5,8,17

81:18 83:2,8,18,23

84:1 86:11 87:8

166:6,10

45-day 81:21 87:6,9

87:11

46 1:11 53:10,11,15

49 1:13 90:2

5

5 1:5,13 20:12,23

49:13,15 50:17

55:17,20 153:17

5,439,985 107:12,15

110:23

5,440,007 107:24

110:22

5,833,199 57:2

5,883,199 1:14 57:4

5.5-6.2 159:3

5.8 159:3

50 73:21 76:4,18

83:6 150:1 166:8

54 53:2

55 85:20,21

57 1:14

5927 158:5

5933 160:10,23,24

5934 159:19

6

6 1:14 57:2,4 63:7

63:23 69:11 72:8

73:18 84:22 88:7

145:9

6,093,792 108:5

111:1

60 82:21 90:6,12

149:1

600 4:6

614 175:5

638 39:25

65 83:9

65% 166:11

67 116:15

7

7 1:15 70:14 94:16

127:16

7th 3:11

7,763,663 108:19

109:25 110:2,15

7,963,663 111:5

7-7-14 194:12

70 59:23 83:6 166:8

72 165:20 166:1

167:10,16

7456 86:14

7645 86:25

77 83:9

77% 166:11

8

8 1:15 95:14 127:16

128:21,21

800 152:25

86 121:10

867 170:12

88 16:4

9

9 1:9,16 34:2,10

73:19 77:16,17

82:24 103:3,5,14

127:16

9.2 113:12,14

9:00 3:16

90 42:17

92 100:14

93 47:2 48:18

100:14,14

9358 3:3 5:9 194:2

94 1:15

95 1:15 28:12,18,20

28:21,25 29:5

110:23

97 150:20

98 150:20 177:14

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Complaint Counsel

Exhibit C

CCX-C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

____________________________________ 

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

ECM BioFilms, Inc., ) Docket No. 9358 

a corporation, also d/b/a ) 

Enviroplastics International ) 

 ) 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE SUBPOENA 

DUCEUS TECUM TO DR. STEPHEN MCCARTHY

Pursuant to Rules 3.34 and 3.38A of the Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice 

for Adjudicative Proceedings, Complaint Counsel hereby submits the following objections and 

responses to Respondent’s Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) to Dr. Stephen McCarthy 

(“Expert”). 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it is invalid and 

unenforceable for lack of Commission Seal. 

2. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it is invalid and 

unenforceable because it is issued directly to Complaint Counsel’s expert and not to Complaint 

Counsel. 

3. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it calls for the 

discovery of information beyond the scope of § 3.31A of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and the ALJ’s Scheduling Order in this case. See also In the Matter of Basic Research, No. 

9318, 2004 FTC LEXIS 237, *9 (F.T.C. Dec. 9, 2004); In re Dura Lube, No. 9292, 1999 FTC 

LEXIS 254 (F.TC. Dec. 15, 1999). 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
2 

4. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks information 

before expert disclosures are required in accordance with § 3.31A of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and the ALJ’s Scheduling Order in this case.

5. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks information 

that is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and/or not reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of information relevant to the allegations of the complaint, to the proposed 

relief, or to Respondent’s defenses. 

6. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it is overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, vague or ambiguous. 

7. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it is unreasonably 

cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive. 

8. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena because the burden and expense of 

the proposed discovery outweigh its likely benefit. 

9. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that 

is subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, the investigative 

privilege, the non-testifying expert privilege, the deliberative privilege, the law enforcement 

privilege, the informant privilege, and the joint prosecution privilege, that is exempt from 

disclosure pursuant to confidentiality provisions set forth in the FTC Act, that is protected from 

disclosure by the privilege for information given to the FTC on a Pledge of Confidentiality, that 

is protected from disclosure under principles of financial privacy, that is subject to a protective 

order from another litigation, or that is subject to other applicable legal protection or privilege. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
3 

10. Complaint Counsel objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it calls for materials 

outside the scope of discovery pursuant to Rule 3.31(c)(2).

11. By providing information in response to the Subpoena, Complaint Counsel does 

not concede that the Subpoena is valid, appropriate, or that such information is relevant, material, 

or admissible in evidence. 

12. Complaint Counsel’s objections and responses to the Subpoena are based on 

information now known to Counsel. Complaint Counsel has not yet completed its discovery of 

the facts in this case or prepared for trial and therefore reserves its rights under the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice to amend, modify, or supplement its objections and responses if it learns of 

new information. 

13. Complaint Counsel will not produce information responsive to any request that 

Respondent previously has produced to Complaint Counsel at any point during the investigation 

or prosecution of this matter.

14. Complaint Counsel will not produce information responsive to any request that 

has been provided to Respondent previously at any point during the investigation or prosecution 

of this matter.

15. Each of the foregoing General Objections is incorporated in each of the 

Responses hereinafter set forth. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Complaint 

Counsel provides the following responses. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SUBPOENA SPECIFICATIONS

1. All documents received or possessed before you were engaged as an expert (consulting or 

testifying) in FTC Docket No. 9358 that concern ECM BioFilms, Inc., any past and 

present employee or principal of ECM, and/or the ECM additive. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
4 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific 

objections, Complaint Counsel will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents 

within the scope of Rules 3.31 and 3.31A, and in accordance with the Scheduling Order 

and the Commission Rules. 

2. All documents, materials, correspondence, forms, marketing material, and testing used or 

referenced to form any and all opinions you may offer in this case. Production of all 

responsive materials should be submitted in accordance with the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and the ALJ’s Scheduling Order in this matter. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information 

required to be produced under Rule 3.31A(c) and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s Scheduling 

Order. Complaint Counsel therefore objects to this Request because it unilaterally 

changes the scheduling order and advances Complaint Counsel’s deadline for production 

of Rule 3.31A(c) expert information by two months. The Scheduling Order dictates the 

time and manner of production for information covered by this Request. Subject to and 

without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, Complaint Counsel will 

produce all responsive, non-privileged documents within the scope of Rules 3.31 and 

3.31A, and in accordance with the Scheduling Order and the Commission Rules. 

3. All contracts, retainers, or engagement letters between you and any public or private firm 

that manufactures and/or produces biodegradable and/or compostable products. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information 

beyond the scope of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of 

the Court’s Scheduling Order. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request to the 

extent that it seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent 

that this unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-

(iii).

4. All reports, analyses, assessments, tests, data, summaries, and conclusions issued to any 

public or private firm that manufactures and/or produces biodegradable and/or 

compostable products concerning the biodegradability of plastics manufactured by those 

companies. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby incorporates by reference each General 

Objection as if set forth here in full. Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to 

the extent that it seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the 

extent that this unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 

3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks 

information beyond the scope of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and 

Paragraph 19 of the Court’s Scheduling Order. 

5. All correspondence between you and any firm that manufactures and/or produces a 

product or substance in competition generally with other biodegradable plastic products 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
5 

(to wit, ECM’s additive) concerning the biodegradability of plastics manufactured with

plastic additives. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

6. All correspondence and sections of contracts, retainers, and/or agreements with the 

University of Massachusetts, Lowell (“Umass”) concerning funding (including research 

grants) of research related to biodegradable plastics or polymers. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

7. All your pending or existing patents that involve or relate to plastics and or biodegradable 

and compostable substances, products, and technologies, including those patents for 

which you are the assignor. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, Dr. 

McCarthy has disclosed his complete Curriculum Vitae, which includes a list of all his 

patents. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, 

Complaint Counsel will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents within the 

scope of Rules 3.31 and 3.31A, and in accordance with the Scheduling Order and the 

Commission Rules.

8. All licensing or royalty agreements involving or concerning patents identified supra in 

response to Request 7, and all such agreements involving intellectual property related to 

biodegradable and compostable products. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific 

objections, Dr. McCarthy has disclosed his complete Curriculum Vitae, which includes a 

list of all his patents. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
6 

9. Copies of all contracts, grant documents (including proposals) for the following research 

projects you were involved in: 

a. Metabolix, “Development of Novel of Biodegradable Materials, $1,500,196 

b. NSF Center for Biodegradable Polymer Research, $1,200,000 Industrial Members 

(8/93-present), Principal Investigator 

c. Polymer Degradation Research Center, $475,000, Industrial Members (8/89-8/93) 

d. Digital, “Plastics Materials Research”, $458,706 

e. Metabolix Inc., Performance of PHA Derived Chemicals and Polyols in 

Polyurethane, $141,465 

f. 3M, “Composting Research”, $155,000 

g. Warner Lambert, “Biodegradable Polymer Research”, $116,591 

h. National Science Foundation, “Biodegradable Polymer Research Center”, 

$110,000 (8/93-8/95) 

i. Department of the Army, “Polymer Degradation Research”, $104,000 

j. Institute for Plastics Innovation, “Injection Molding Research”, $75,000 

k. Massachusetts Centers of Excellence, “Institute for Plastics Innovation”, $75,000 

l. Metabolix Inc., Performance of Polyhydroxyalkanote Derived Chemicals and 

Polyols in Polyurethane, $71,465 

m. Battelle, “Biodegradable Packaging Development”, $59,865 

n. DuPont Corian, $50,000 

o. Invista, “Evaluation of Plasticizers”, $ 28,000 

p. Massachusetts Centers of Excellence, “Polymer Degradation Research”, $25,000 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby incorporates by reference each General 

Objection as if set forth here in full. Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to 

the extent that it seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the 

extent that this unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 

3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks 

information beyond the scope of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and 

Paragraph 19 of the Court’s Scheduling Order. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
7 

10. All documents concerning any testing or product evaluations involving biodegradable 

and/or compostable plastics in which you participated on behalf of, or as a member of, 

the BioEnvironmental Polymer Society and/or the Society of Plastics Engineers.

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

11. All correspondence between you and any employee and/or consultant of the 

Biodegradable Products Institute (“BPI”). 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

12. All correspondence with Dr. Ramani Narayan. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

13. All correspondence with any employee or contracting employee of O.W.S., Inc. related to 

biodegradable plastics. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

14. All correspondence (not subject to attorney client or work-product privilege and received 

before engagement as an expert in FTC Docket No. 9358) with any employee and/or 

representative of the Federal Trade Commission concerning biodegradable plastics. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
8 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

15. All correspondence with any witness, person, and/or consultant used to help form any 

opinion you have in this case. Production of all responsive materials should be submitted 

in accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and the ALJ’s Scheduling Order 

in this matter. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information 

required to be produced under Rule 3.31A(c) and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s Scheduling 

Order. Complaint Counsel therefore objects to this Request because it unilaterally 

changes the scheduling order and advances Complaint Counsel’s deadline for production 

of Rule 3.31A(c) expert information by two months. The Scheduling Order dictates the 

time and manner of production for information covered by this Request. Subject to and 

without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, Complaint Counsel will 

produce all responsive, non-privileged documents within the scope of Rules 3.31 and 

3.31A, and in accordance with the Scheduling Order and the Commission Rules. 

16. All documents revealing shares of stock or ownership interests held by you in any 

company that sells, manufactures, or markets plastics, biodegradable technologies, and/or 

compostable technologies. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

17. A listing of all consultant, executive, or corporate positions you held concerning work or 

employment related to the biodegradability of plastics over the past ten years. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific 

objections, Dr. McCarthy has disclosed his complete Curriculum Vitae, which includes a 

list of all his positions related to biodegradability of plastics over the past ten years.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
9 

18. All documents and correspondence between you and the authors of the article Gómez, 

EF, Michel Jr., FC. “Biodegradability of conventional and bio-based plastics and natural 

fiber composites during composting, anaerobic digestion and long-term soil incubation” 

Polymer Degradation and Stability, Vol. 98 (December 2013): 2583-2591. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, Dr. 

McCarthy has disclosed his complete Curriculum Vitae, which includes a list of all his 

scientific publications, papers, or presentations. Subject to and without waiving the 

foregoing General and specific objections, Complaint Counsel will produce all 

responsive, non-privileged documents within the scope of Rules 3.31 and 3.31A, and in 

accordance with the Scheduling Order and the Commission Rules. 

19. Copies of all scientific publications, papers, or presentations that you authored 

concerning the rate or extent of biodegradable (including compostable) polymers when 

measured in a laboratory environment or in situ. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, Dr. 

McCarthy has disclosed his complete Curriculum Vitae, which includes a list of all his 

scientific publications, papers, or presentations. Subject to and without waiving the 

foregoing General and specific objections, Complaint Counsel will produce all 

responsive, non-privileged documents within the scope of Rules 3.31 and 3.31A, and in 

accordance with the Scheduling Order and the Commission Rules. 

20. All conflict of interest forms or agreements completed or signed by you in association 

with your work at the Umass, or as a testifying witness in this case. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

21. All documents concerning ASTM, including correspondence, in which you presented a 

proposal, voted on a proposal, or opposed a proposal concerning biodegradable plastics 

standards or test methods. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
10 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. 

22. If you have ever served as an expert in any other proceeding involving the Federal Trade 

Commission, copies of all expert reports and testimony given by you in those 

proceedings. Production of all responsive materials should be submitted in accordance 

with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and the ALJ’s Scheduling Order in this matter. 

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks 

information required to be produced under Rule 3.31A(c) and Paragraph 19 of the 

Court’s Scheduling Order. Complaint Counsel therefore objects to this Request because 

it unilaterally changes the scheduling order and advances Complaint Counsel’s deadline 

for production of Rule 3.31A(c) expert information by two months. The Scheduling 

Order dictates the time and manner of production for information covered by this 

Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, 

Dr. McCarthy has disclosed all prior cases in which the Expert has testified or has been 

deposed within the preceding four years. Complaint Counsel will produce all responsive, 

non-privileged documents within the scope of Rules 3.31 and 3.31A, and in accordance 

with the Scheduling Order and the Commission Rules. 

23. If you have ever served as an expert in any other legal proceeding involving plastics 

technologies, produce copies of all expert reports and testimony given by you in those 

proceedings. Production of all responsive materials should be submitted in accordance 

with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and the ALJ’s Scheduling Order in this matter.

RESPONSE: Complaint Counsel hereby objects to this Request to the extent that it 

seeks information not likely to lead to relevant evidence, and to the extent that this 

unlimited request is overbroad and burdensome under 16 CFR § 3.31(c)(2)(i)-(iii). 

Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks information beyond the scope 

of information to be produced under Rule 3.31A and Paragraph 19 of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. Complaint Counsel objects to this Request because it seeks 

information required to be produced under Rule 3.31A(c) and Paragraph 19 of the 

Court’s Scheduling Order. Complaint Counsel therefore objects to this Request because 

it unilaterally changes the scheduling order and advances Complaint Counsel’s deadline 

for production of Rule 3.31A(c) expert information by two months. The Scheduling 

Order dictates the time and manner of production for information covered by this 

Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and specific objections, 

Dr. McCarthy has disclosed all prior cases in which the Expert has testified or has been 

deposed within the preceding four years. Complaint Counsel will produce all responsive, 

non-privileged documents within the scope of Rules 3.31 and 3.31A, and in accordance 

with the Scheduling Order and the Commission Rules. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
11 

Dated: April 25, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Katherine Johnson 

 Katherine Johnson (202) 326-2185 

 Jonathan Cohen (202) 326-2551 

 Elisa K. Jillson (202) 326-3001

Division of Enforcement 

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailstop M-8102B 

Washington, DC 20580

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 25, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of the paper 

original of the foregoing document to be served as follows: 

One electronic copy to Counsel for the Respondent: 

Jonathan W. Emord

Emord & Associates, P.C. 

11808 Wolf Run Lane 

Clifton, VA 20124 

Email: jemord@emord.com

Peter Arhangelsky

Emord & Associates, P.C. 

3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4 

Chandler, AZ 85286 

Email: parhangelsky@emord.com 

Lou Caputo 

Emord & Associates, P.C. 

3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4 

Chandler, AZ 85286 

Email: lcaputo@emord.com 

I further certify that I possess a paper copy of the signed original of the foregoing document that 

is available for review by the parties and the adjudicator.

April 25, 2014 /s/ Katherine Johnson 

 Katherine Johnson 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT