UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Patent 8,361,156
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`OF RICHARD A. HYNES, M.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Patent 8,361,156
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`OF RICHARD A. HYNES, M.D.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Ex. #
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`NUVA 2101 U.S. Patent No. 7,905,840 to Pimenta et al.
`NUVA 2102 Declaration in Support of the Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael
`A. Amon; Declaration of Charles Forthaus (Not Filed)
`
`NUVA 2103 Vetebral Spacer-PR Brochure (Not Filed)
`NUVA 2104 Forthaus Memo regarding Vertebral Spacer-PR Brochure (Not
`Filed)
`
`NUVA 2105 myspinetools.com front page (Not Filed)
`
`NUVA 2106 myspinetools.com Terms of Use (Not Filed)
`
`NUVA 2107 Launch Binder (Not Filed)
`
`NUVA 2108 Webpage Toad MySQL (Not Filed)
`
`NUVA 2109 Reserved
`
`NUVA 2010 U.S. Patent 8,512,408 (Hynes) (Not Filed)
`
`NUVA 2011 Synthes SVS-PR Guide
`
`NUVA 2012 Medtronic Sofamor Danek Boomerang brochure
`
`NUVA 2013 Hynes Deposition Transcript
`
`NUVA 2014 510(k) Summary Medtronic Sofamor Danek K122037
`
`NUVA 2015 510(k) Summary Telamon® PEEK Spinal System K110562
`
`NUVA 2016 Synthes Vertebral Spacer – AR Brochure
`
`NUVA 2017 DePuy Spine Saber Surgical Technique Brochure
`
`NUVA 2018 Declaration of Barton L. Sachs, M.D. in IPR2013-00206
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`NUVA 2019 Moro, et al., “An Anatomic Study of the Lumbar Plexus with
`Respect to Retroperitoneal Endoscopic Surgery”
`
`NUVA 2020 Declaration of Dr. Hansen A. Yuan, M.D.
`
`NUVA 2021 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Hansen A. Yuan, M.D.
`
`NUVA 2022 NuVasive - CoRoent XL Brochure
`
`NUVA 2023 Redacted Engineering Drawings
`
`NUVA 2024 Redacted Deposition of Steven DeRidder
`
`NUVA 2025 Clydesdale® Spinal System Brochure
`
`NUVA 2026 Clydesdale® Spinal System Images
`NUVA 2027 Medtronic Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion DLIF Surgical
`Technique Brochure
`
`NUVA 2028 Medtronic DILF-Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion Brochure
`
`NUVA 2029 Clydesdale® Spinal System Image
`
`NUVA 2030 Declaration of Patrick Miles
`
`NUVA 2031 Declaration of Theodore G. Obenchain, M.D.
`NUVA 2032 The Relationship between Cross Sectional Area and Strength of
`Back Muscles in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain
`
`NUVA 2033 Printout, U.S. News & World Report
`
`NUVA 2034 Lumbar Vertebral Body Replacement
`
`NUVA 2035 Lumbar – Minimally Invasive Approach (PLIF)
`
`NUVA 2036 Mathews Deposition Transcript (non-confidential portion)
`
`NUVA 2037 Second Hynes Deposition Transcript
`
`NUVA 2038 Josse Deposition Transcript
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`NUVA 2039 Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence Under 37 CFR §
`42.64(b)(1), dated 9/12/2014
`
`NUVA 2040 Email from Michael A. Amon to Jeff E. Schwartz, dated 9/9/2014
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`
`
`
`NuVasive, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) submits this motion for observation regarding
`
`cross-examination during the September 30, 2014 deposition of Richard A. Hynes,
`
`a reply declarant of Medtronic, Inc. (“Petitioner”). Patent Owner submits the
`
`following observations based on Dr. Hynes’ testimony.
`
`Observation #1
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 26:23-29:10 and 185:8-12, Dr. Hynes testified to his financial
`
`relationship with Petitioner and in particular at 185:8-12 he testified that he may
`
`have been paid $767,000 in a single twelve month period. That testimony is
`
`relevant to ¶ 1 of Dr. Hynes’ first declaration where he claims to be an independent
`
`expert because it is evidence that Dr. Hynes cannot be a truly independent,
`
`unbiased expert on matters involving Medtronic as a party.
`
`Observation #2
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 176:24-177:11 and 178:2-6, Dr. Hynes testified that he knows Dr.
`
`Hal Mathews and thinks highly of him. That testimony is relevant to the expertise
`
`and credibility of Dr. Hansen Yuan, who provided expert testimony in Ex. 2020.
`
`The testimony is relevant because of Dr. Mathews’ under oath testimony in Ex.
`
`2036 (deposition transcript where Dr. Mathews was testifying on behalf of
`
`Petitioner in a different proceeding) praising Dr. Yuan’s accomplishments and
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`reputation in the spine surgeon community, testimony that Dr. Hynes did not
`
`disagree with. (See Observation # 3, below.)
`
`Observation #3
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 181:18-24, 182:11-22, 183:24-184:9, and 184:18-24, Dr. Hynes
`
`considered and did not disagree with under oath testimony by Dr. Mathews from
`
`Ex. 2036 praising Dr. Hansen Yuan as “one of the top 5 or 10 of all surgeons” and
`
`“one of the grandfathers of modern day spine surgery.” That testimony is relevant
`
`to the expertise and credibility of Dr. Yuan, who provided expert testimony in Ex.
`
`2020. Dr. Matthews’ testimony is relevant because it is an unbiased,
`
`contemporaneous opinion by one of Petitioner’s former employees that can help a
`
`fact finder assess the credibility of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Yuan. Moreover, it
`
`may help a fact finder make a determination regarding numerous subjects upon
`
`which Dr. Yuan and Dr. Hynes present contradictory testimony.
`
`Observation #4
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 83:11-84:7, 84:16-85:23, 86:15-19, and 90:7-13, Dr. Hynes
`
`testified regarding the description of a Vertebral Body Replacement by the
`
`Hospital for Special Surgery in Ex. 2034, p. 1-3. That testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s Reply argument, p. 2-3 and 7-8 regarding vertebral body replacements.
`
`The testimony is relevant because the description of a Vertebral Body Replacement
`
`in Ex. 2034 shows that the size of fusion implants disclosed in Michelson, SVS-
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`PR, and Telamon cannot possibly be used for a vertebral body replacement as
`
`falsely implied in Petitioner’s Reply. The information in Ex. 2034 and Dr. Hynes’
`
`testimony regarding the information provided by Ex. 2034 also comports and
`
`confirms the testimony by Dr. Yuan regarding what one of skill in the art
`
`considered a vertebral body replacement. See Yuan Deposition Transcript, Ex.
`
`1173,1 at 273:20-279:7.
`
`Observation #5
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 86:20 to 87:8, Dr. Hynes testified that removing the corpus and the
`
`disc above and below the corpus in the lumbar spine during a vertebral body
`
`replacement leaves a space, on average, with a height of “[s]omewhere between 40
`
`to 60 millimeters.” That testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply argument, p. 2-
`
`3 and 7-8 regarding vertebral body replacements. The testimony is relevant
`
`because the 40-60 mm height of the void left during a vertebral body replacement
`
`cannot be filled by the much shorter interbody fusion implants disclosed in
`
`Michelson, SVS-PR, and Telamon as falsely implied in Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Observation #6
`
`
`1 While Ex. 1173 includes only excerpts of the Yuan deposition transcript, the
`
`parties have agreed and Petitioner will be filing the full Yuan Deposition
`
`Transcript with the Board.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`In Ex. 2037, at 87:9-88:7 and 91:9-11, Dr. Hynes agreed that the Hospital For
`
`Special Surgery (Ex. 2035 at p. 1) and Dr. Yuan consider an interbody fusion to be
`
`a procedure in which a degenerative disc between two adjacent vertebrae is
`
`removed and the two adjacent vertebrae are fused. That testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s argument, raised for the first time in Reply, at p. 2-3 and 7-8, that the
`
`prior art cited in the institution of these IPR matters are vertebral body
`
`replacements. Petitioner described the same prior art in the Petition as spinal
`
`fusion or interbody fusion implants. See Petition at p. 8 ("The ‘156 patent is
`
`directed to a spinal fusion implant"), p. 14 ("the SVS-PR Brochure…discloses a
`
`spinal fusion implant"), 22 (same re Michelson), p. 30 (same re Frey and Baccelli),
`
`and p. 38 (same re Telamon). This testimony is relevant to explain the difference
`
`between a spinal or interbody fusion procedure and a vertebral body replacement –
`
`showing that spinal or interbody fusion implants do not have sufficient height to be
`
`used as vertebral body replacements, which Petitioner’s Reply incorrectly implies.
`
`Observation #7
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 77:22-78:5 and 78:14-24, Dr. Hynes testified regarding the U.S.
`
`News & World Report rankings identifying the Hospital for Special Surgery as the
`
`number 1 Orthopaedics Department in the United States in Ex. 2033. That
`
`testimony is relevant to Ex. 2034 and 2035, which are documents from the
`
`Hospital For Special Surgery explaining the difference between a vertebral body
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`replacement procedure and a spinal fusion or interbody fusion procedure. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows the reliability of the Hospital For Spinal
`
`Surgery documents in Ex. 2034 and 2035 discussed in Observations 4-6.
`
`Observation #8
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 94:14-95:6, 96:7-97:5, 98:21-99:1, and 100:16-24, Dr. Hynes
`
`testified to a relative lack of expertise regarding FDA procedures and labeling
`
`requirements. That testimony is relevant to Dr. Hynes’ testimony in his Second
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1157) ¶¶ 6, 15, 19, 20, 24, and 39 where he purports to give
`
`expert opinions regarding the effect of statements made during and as a result of
`
`FDA procedures. The testimony is relevant because it shows that such matters are
`
`beyond Dr. Hynes’ expertise, and it undermines his testimony and conclusions
`
`regarding an FDA determination of substantial equivalence to vertebral body
`
`replacement devices and the labeling of such on brochures. See The Johns Hopkins
`
`University v. Datascope, 543 F.3d 1342, 1349 fn. 3 (Fed Cir. 2008) ("FDA
`
`equivalence is irrelevant to patent law.").
`
`Observation #9
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 108:25-109:13, Dr. Hynes testified to his opinion that the Butterfly
`
`implant in Ex. 1123 is an embodiment of the Michelson ‘973 patent, despite having
`
`performed no element-by-element analysis for that determination. That testimony
`
`is relevant to ¶¶ 12 and 15 of the Second Hynes Declaration where he refers to the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`Butterfly implant as a “Michelson Butterfly” and a “Michelson-style implant[].”
`
`The testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Hynes’ opinion that the
`
`Butterfly implant is an embodiment of the Michelson ‘973 patent is conclusory and
`
`unsupported by any evidence in the record.
`
`Observation #10
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 109:14-110:4, Dr. Hynes testified to being aware of the Butterfly
`
`Fusion System in Ex. 1123 long before he drafted his first declaration but
`
`acknowledged at 113:18-23 that the Butterfly Fusion System was not discussed in
`
`his first declaration. That testimony is relevant to ¶¶ 12 and 15 of the Second
`
`Hynes Declaration where he relies for the first time on the Butterfly Fusion system
`
`as alleged prior art. The testimony is relevant because the Butterfly Fusion System
`
`in Ex. 1123 was not filed with the initial petition, it is not part of the instituted
`
`grounds, and Patent Owner has not had an opportunity to address this reference
`
`and the associated allegations.
`
`Observation #11
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 115:9-24, Dr. Hynes testified to being aware of the BAK cages
`
`identified in Ex. 1118 prior to drafting his first declaration but acknowledged at
`
`115:13-24 that the BAK cages were not discussed in his first declaration. That
`
`testimony is relevant to ¶¶ 8, 12, 15, 16, and 31 of the Second Hynes Declaration
`
`where he for the first time relies on the BAK cages as alleged prior art. The
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`testimony is relevant because Ex. 1118 (or any other reference to the BAK
`
`implant) was not filed with the initial petition, the BAK and any exhibits related to
`
`BAK are not part of the instituted grounds, and Patent Owner has not had an
`
`opportunity to address the BAK reference and the associated allegations.
`
`Observation #12
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 143:12-16, Dr. Hynes testified that he performed no element-by-
`
`element analysis comparing the claims of Michelson ‘973 to the BAK cage. That
`
`testimony is relevant to the Second Hynes Declaration, ¶ 16 where Dr. Hynes cites
`
`Ex. 1159 and gives the opinion that “the BAK cage was an embodiment on an
`
`implant commensurate with the claims of Michelson and created by a licensee of
`
`Michelson.” The testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Hynes’ opinion is
`
`conclusory and not supported by any evidence in the record..
`
`Observation #13
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 173:21-174:19, Dr. Hynes testified that Ex. 1118 was dated July
`
`2014, was updated in July 2014, and that he did nothing to confirm whether the
`
`sizes listed in Ex. 1118 were available prior to March 2004. That testimony is
`
`relevant to the Second Hynes Declaration, ¶ 12, where Dr. Hynes improperly relies
`
`on Ex. 1118 as evidence of prior art having a 2.5:1 length-to-width ratio. The
`
`testimony is relevant because Ex. 1118 is not authenticated as a document existing
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`prior to March 2004 and there is no testimony by any witness that BAK cages with
`
`the dimensions in Ex. 1118 existed prior to March 2004 publicly or otherwise.
`
`Observation #14
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 175:19-176:1, Dr. Hynes testified Ex. 1118 lists only the “minor
`
`diameter” of the BAK cages which is the “inside diameter” and testified at 176:5-
`
`23 that Ex. 1118 does not disclose the outer diameter of the BAK cages. That
`
`testimony is relevant to the Second Hynes Declaration, ¶ 12, where Dr. Hynes
`
`improperly relies on Ex. 1118 as evidence of prior art having a 2.5:1 length-to-
`
`width ratio which he referred to as “this claimed length-to-width proportion.” The
`
`testimony is relevant because claim 1 of the ‘334 patent requires that the
`
`“longitudinal length is at least two and a half times greater than said maximum
`
`lateral width” (emphasis added). Dr. Hynes’ admission during deposition is
`
`relevant because it undermines Dr. Hynes’ opinion that the BAK cages listed in
`
`Ex. 1118 teach the 2.5:1 length-to-width ratio claimed by the ’334 patent
`
`Observation #15
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 146:10-147:3, Dr. Hynes testified that the implant described in Ex.
`
`1117 is not an SVS-PR implant, a Telamon implant, or a Frey boomerang-style
`
`implant, and that this study was performed using pig cadavers. That testimony is
`
`relevant to the Second Hynes Declaration ¶ 19 where Dr. Hynes relies on Ex. 1117
`
`for the proposition that implants can be inserted in different directions. The
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`testimony shows that the procedures described in Ex. 1117 have little relevance as
`
`to what procedures can be performed with the very different SVS-PR, Telamon,
`
`and Frey boomerang-style implants, and what procedures can be performed on live
`
`human patients (vs. pig cadavers).
`
`Observation #16
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 147:22-24, Dr. Hynes testified that there is no evidence that the
`
`MectaLIF brochure in Appendix H to Ex. 1157 was available prior to March 2004
`
`and at 152:20-24 testified that Ex. 1132 is also not evidence of what a person of
`
`skill would have known prior to March 2004. That testimony is relevant to ¶ 5 of
`
`the Second Hynes Declaration that relies on Appendix H and Ex. 1132. The
`
`testimony is relevant because these are two of a number of exhibits relied upon by
`
`Dr. Hynes even though they disclose implants and/or procedures that were not
`
`known prior to March 2004.
`
`Observation #17
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 154:3-16 and 155:12-156:3, Dr. Hynes testified that he considered
`
`motor vehicles regulations to be evidence of what would have been obvious to a
`
`person of skill in the art in designing spinal implants in 2004, yet at 153:15-18 he
`
`testified that he was not aware of 49 CFR 571.108, at 156:4-14 he testified that he
`
`does not know if the code section was in effect in 2004. That testimony is relevant
`
`to ¶ 21 of the Second Hynes Declaration relying for the first time in these IPR
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`proceedings on motor vehicle regulations to show what would have been obvious
`
`for fusion implants. The testimony is relevant because Dr. Hynes never cites any
`
`evidence in his First Declaration (Ex. 1101) or any other evidence in his Second
`
`Declaration for why an implant designer would have been motivated to include
`
`two radiopaque markers in the medial plane of an elongated implant. This vehicle
`
`C.F.R. code section argument was raised for the first time in Reply. The fact that
`
`Dr. Hynes considers vehicle regulations to be probative undermines his opinion
`
`that the claimed marker positioning was known to implant designers.
`
`Observation #18
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 159:8-17, Dr. Hynes testified that he does not know when he first
`
`conceived of the idea that the addition of two markers along the medial plane
`
`would inform the surgeon of the implant being askew or whether he knew it before
`
`his first declaration. That testimony is relevant to the end of ¶ 21 of the Second
`
`Hynes Declaration where Dr. Hynes proposes this argument for the first time. The
`
`testimony is relevant because adding new arguments for reasons to combine claim
`
`elements after the Petition creates a moving target that prejudices Patent Owner’s
`
`ability to address such arguments. Moreover, this is not a credible argument
`
`without any evidence that it was known to a person skilled in the art prior to March
`
`2004.
`
`Observation #19
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`In Ex. 2037, at 157:16-19 and 157:22-158:7, Dr. Hynes testified that the medial
`
`markers added to the drawing provided after ¶ 21 of the Second Hynes Declaration
`
`are not actually needed to determine whether the implant is askew. That testimony
`
`is relevant to the argument in ¶ 21 of the Second Hynes Declaration that “the
`
`addition of a second marker along the medial plane of the implant would inform
`
`the surgeon as to whether the implant was askew after insertion in the disc space.”
`
`The testimony undermines Dr. Hynes’ alleged reason to combine, raised for the
`
`first time in his Second Declaration.
`
`Observation #20
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 148:24-151:24, Dr. Hynes testified that he considers the implant on
`
`the sixth page of Ex. 1132 to include a marker in the medial plane as the term is
`
`used in claim 1 of the ‘156 patent. That testimony is relevant to Dr. Hynes
`
`opinions regarding where it would have been obvious to place markers in a given
`
`implant, such as the testimony in ¶¶ 9-10 of the Second Hynes Declaration and ¶
`
`68 of the First Hynes Declaration. The testimony shows that Dr. Hynes does not
`
`have a clear understanding of certain patent terms, including “medial plane”. This
`
`undermines Dr. Hynes’ opinions regarding whether one skilled in the art would
`
`have found it obvious to add markers to the medial plane of the SVS-PR or
`
`Telamon implants.
`
`Observation #21
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`In Ex. 2037, at 119:11-17, 119:22-120:8, 124:8-14, 125:6-18, 128:14-129:11,
`
`134:12-21, 135:2-5, and 137:4-20, Dr. Hynes testified regarding an x-ray image at
`
`Appendix K to the Second Hynes Declaration, and that the x-ray image shows an
`
`old threaded metal cylindrical cage implant at the L4-5 level and a newer
`
`Medtronic Clydesdale PEEK implant with multiple radiopaque markers at the L3-4
`
`level. That testimony is relevant to ¶ 15 of the Second Hynes Declaration where
`
`Dr. Hynes discusses Appendix K. The testimony shows that Dr. Hynes failed to
`
`identify and describe both implants in Appendix K and one might have otherwise
`
`not noticed the second, Clydesdale implant. Moreover, Appendix K shows the
`
`novel differences between the prior art and the inventions of the ‘156 patent.
`
`Observation #22
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 130:9-18, 130:23-131:2, 131:19-132:7, 132:12-15, 133:9-15, 138:2-
`
`12, and 139:14-23, Dr. Hynes testified that Appendix K does not confirm the date
`
`of insertion of the cylindrical metal cage implant, that he did not attach the
`
`patient’s medical report, that he does not know who inserted the cylindrical cage
`
`implant, that he does not know the name of the patient, and that he was unable to
`
`obtain the operative report for that procedure. That testimony is relevant to ¶ 15 of
`
`the Second Hynes Declaration where Dr. Hynes alleges that the cylindrical cage
`
`was inserted in 2001. The testimony undermines Dr. Hynes testimony and opinion
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`that the cylindrical cage implant in Appendix K was in fact inserted into a patient
`
`in 2001.
`
`Observation #23
`
`In Ex. 2037, at 62:23-64:2, Dr. Hynes acknowledges that Dr. Obenchain, the
`
`named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,313,962 attached as Appendix C to the
`
`Second Hynes Declaration, previously testified that the psoas muscle was avoided
`
`like an alligator-infested swamp. That testimony is relevant to ¶ 4 of the Second
`
`Hynes Declaration where Dr. Hynes cites Dr. Obenchain’s patent for the
`
`proposition that transpsoas techniques were well known. The testimony shows that
`
`Dr. Hynes’ testimony that the transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine was
`
`routinely done is incorrect, especially given that Dr. Obenchain’s patent is the only
`
`reference Dr. Hynes cites that even references a transpsoas approach.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /Stuart A. Nelson/
`Stuart A. Nelson
`Reg. No. 63,947
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 10/6/2014
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2508
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00506
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-0116IP2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on October 6, 2014, a complete and entire copy of this Motion for
`
`Observation Regarding Cross-Examination of Richard A. Hynes, M.D. was
`
`provided via email to the Petitioner by serving the email correspondence address of
`
`record as follows:
`
`Jeff E. Schwartz
`Seth A. Kramer
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`1030 15th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Email: jeschwartz@foxrothschild.com
`Email: skramer@foxrothschild.com
`Email: ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Diana Bradley/
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
` (858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
