UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`and MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TROY R. NORRED, M.D.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`____________
`
`Attorney Docket No. 058888-0000019
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OB-
`SERVATION REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ALEXANDER J.
`HILL, PH.D.
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`and MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TROY R. NORRED, M.D.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`____________
`
`Attorney Docket No. 058888-0000019
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OB-
`SERVATION REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ALEXANDER J.
`HILL, PH.D.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`Pursuant to the Order dated June 27, 2014 (Paper 14), Petitioner submits this re-
`
`sponse to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`regarding the cross-examination testimony of Alexander J. Hill, Ph.D.
`
`1.
`
`Response to Observation No. 1
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the ‘228 patent was filed. This observation is irrelevant because it is based on
`
`the incorrect assumption that an expert’s knowledge must be gained prior to the in-
`
`vention date. See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Kappos, 923 F.Supp.2d 788 (E.D. Va.
`
`2013)(An “expert must be qualified to testify about what a person with ordinary
`
`skill in the art must have understood at the time of the invention, but the expert’s
`
`knowledge may have come later.”). Dr. Hill defines a person of ordinary skill as
`
`having a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or biomedical engineering and direct ex-
`
`perience developing heart valves. Ex. 1026 (Hill Decl.), ¶31. As to educational ex-
`
`perience, Dr. Hill has M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Biomedical Engineering, a minor
`
`in Mechanical Engineering, and a B.A. in Biology. Hill Decl., ¶¶21-24; see also,
`
`Hill Decl., ¶25-29 and Ex. 2353 (“Hill Tr.”), 27:4-15. As to heart valve experience,
`
`over the past nine years Dr. Hill has researched and developed heart valve re-
`
`placements, including percutaneous aortic valve replacements, such as those dis-
`
`closed in the ‘228 patent. Hill Decl., ¶¶5-16. Dr. Hill “has personally designed and
`
`tested numerous percutaneous heart valves, and have implanted valves into both
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`live and isolated hearts,” conducted research and managed a group that conducts
`
`research “focused on percutaneous, minimally invasive, and surgical heart valve
`
`replacement and repair,” and was involved with products designed to treat the aor-
`
`tic valve. Id.; see also, Hill Tr., 35:21-36:5, 38:12-41:3. Finally, Dr. Hill worked
`
`with stents while a research assistant and has personally deployed stents in isolated
`
`hearts. Hill Tr., 31:8-33:19.
`
`2.
`
`Response to Observation No. 2
`
`Patent Owner suggests that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding placement of a prosthet-
`
`ic aortic valve should be discounted because he lacks a medical degree and is not
`
`involved in the direct treatment of patients with aortic stenosis. Patent Owner’s ob-
`
`servation is irrelevant. With respect to medical knowledge, Dr. Hill is a Clinical
`
`Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Minnesota
`
`Medical School, an Instructor of Advanced Cardiac Anatomy & Physiology at the
`
`University of Minnesota, an Instructor of advanced cardiac anatomy didactic and
`
`dissection for electrophysiology and cardiology fellows, and an Instructor of Ad-
`
`vanced Cardiac Anatomy & Physiology within Medtronic. Hill Decl., ¶¶10, 27-29.
`
`As a Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant, Dr. Hill worked in a cardiovascular
`
`research laboratory studying mammalian cardiac anatomy, physiology, and pathol-
`
`ogy; and taught human physiology and advanced cardiac anatomy and physiology.
`
`Hill Decl., ¶¶25-26; Hill Tr., 28:9-19. Dr. Hill has also evaluated the clinical out-
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`comes of aortic valve replacements and was involved with transcatheter valve
`
`products to treat aorta stenosis. Hill Tr., 35:23-36:5; 39:24-40:23.
`
`3.
`
`Response to Observation No. 3
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony that the sinotubular junction “could
`
`be interpreted as the transition point from the aortic root to the ascending aorta”
`
`contradicts his statement that the Schreck valve extends into the ascending aorta.
`
`However, when Dr. Hill was asked if the sinotubular junction is the transition point
`
`from the aortic root to the ascending aorta, he responded, “I think that’s one inter-
`
`pretation.” Hill Tr. 62:15-25 (emphasis added); see also, Hill Tr. 156:20-161:3. Dr.
`
`Hill explained that “in other descriptions, the ascending aorta includes the entirety
`
`of the aortic root.” Hill Tr. 165:1-13; see also, Hill Decl., ¶¶33, 65-68, 71.
`
`4.
`
`Response to Observation No. 4
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding the sinotubular junction
`
`contradicts his statement that the Schreck valve extends into the ascending aorta.
`
`However, when Dr. Hill was asked if the sinotubular junction is the transition point
`
`from the aortic root to the ascending aorta, he responded, “I think that’s one inter-
`
`pretation.” Hill Tr. 62:15-25 (emphasis added); see also, Hill Tr. 156:20-161:3. Dr.
`
`Hill explained that “in other descriptions, the ascending aorta includes the entirety
`
`of the aortic root.” Hill Tr., 165:1-13; see also, Hill Decl., ¶¶33, 65-68, 71.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`5.
`
`Response to Observation No. 5
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding expansion and contraction
`
`of the aorta contradicts his statement that the commissures do not cause any
`
`movement of the leaflets. However, Dr. Hill testified that the commissures do not
`
`cause the leaflets to move and that instead the commissures and leaflets move be-
`
`cause of pressure changes due to contractions in the heart. Hill Tr., 63:1-64:23, Hill
`
`Decl., ¶35; see also, Hill Tr. 105:18-106:1, 106:12-23, 109:1-6.
`
`6.
`
`Response to Observation No. 6
`
`Patent Owner suggests that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding blockage of the coro-
`
`nary arteries qualifies his testimony that placement and positioning of prosthetic
`
`aortic valves within the aorta is within the discretion of the physician. However,
`
`Dr. Hill already testified that with respect to the physician’s discretion that
`
`“[p]lacement is based on, among other things, anatomical aspects of a particular
`
`patient.” Hill Decl., ¶34. Dr. Hill also explained that physicians can place devices
`
`“wherever they want outside or within the instructions for use” but that they would
`
`take surrounding structures into account. Hill Tr., 90:16-22, 129:11-130:1.
`
`7.
`
`Response to Observation No. 7
`
`Patent Owner suggests that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding regurgitation qualifies
`
`his testimony that “a prosthetic valve that provides less than complete fluid integri-
`
`ty between adjacent valves leaflets would still achieve desired performance param-
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`eters.” While Dr. Hill testified that “an ideal state would be to have minimization
`
`of perivalvular leakage;” he explained that “some small leaks can be tolerated” and
`
`that “[e]ven perfectly functioning prosthetic aortic valves do not fully prevent re-
`
`gurgitation.” Hill Tr., 73:18-74:20, 69:16-22; Hill Decl. ¶70.
`
`8.
`
`Response to Observation No. 8
`
`Patent Owner cites testimony by Dr. Hill where he agrees that passive prosthetic
`
`valves utilize aortic pressure gradients to open and close. Hill Tr., 73:6-17. Patent
`
`Owner suggests that this testimony qualifies Dr. Hill’s testimony that Figures 18
`
`and 19 do not show a structure that “mov[es] the membrane second end” as re-
`
`quired by claim 16. However, the cited testimony only speaks generally as to the
`
`response of passive prosthetic valves to pressure gradients and does not address
`
`specific valve embodiments or structures of the ‘228 patent.
`
`9.
`
`Response to Observation No. 9
`
`Patent Owner suggests that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding guidance given to phy-
`
`sicians on the placement of Medtronic’s CoreValve prosthetic aortic valve quali-
`
`fies Dr. Hill’s testimony that placement and positioning of prosthetic aortic valves
`
`is within the discretion of the physician. However, with respect to the CoreValve
`
`device, Dr. Hill testified, “there's lots of debate around physicians and how they
`
`interpret placement of that device.” Hill Tr., 78:14-25. Further, Dr. Hill testified
`
`that “[p]lacement [of a prosthetic aortic valve] is based on, among other things, an-
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`atomical aspects of a particular patient” and that physicians can put a replacement
`
`valve “wherever they want outside or within the instructions for use.” Hill Decl.,
`
`¶34; Hill Tr., 90:16-22, 129:11-130:1.
`
`10. Response to Observation No. 10
`
`Patent Owner suggests that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding whether a person of or-
`
`dinary skill in the art needs to have taken medical classes bears upon whether to
`
`accept Dr. Hill’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, this
`
`observation is irrelevant as Dr. Hill testified that, in addition to a bachelor’s degree
`
`in mechanical or biomedical engineering, the ordinary person in the field would
`
`have direct experience developing heart valves. Hill Decl., ¶31. Dr. Hill also testi-
`
`fied that while a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering may
`
`not have taken an anatomy class, such a person would look at literature and at oth-
`
`er valves to learn about valve placement. Hill Tr., 91:17-92:10, see 86:4-87:1.
`
`11. Response to Observation No. 11
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill testified that “a person with no medical training at
`
`all, who sits in his garage and hashes out with chicken wire a mock-up of a heart
`
`valve, can qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art.” This observation is in-
`
`complete. The question posed to Dr. Hill included another element, namely, that
`
`the hypothetical person has an anatomy book. Hill Tr., 86:19-20 (“I’ve got in front
`
`of me a book, say, the book that you helped edit.”). In response, Dr. Hill explained
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`that this would constitute a person of skill in the art, because “the book – the heart
`
`valve book or other book would be considered part of education in the anatomy.”
`
`Hill Tr., 86:24-87:1. Dr. Hill also testified that while a person with a bachelor’s
`
`degree in mechanical engineering may not have taken classes on human anatomy,
`
`they would look at literature and other valves. Hill Tr., 91:17-92:10, see 86:4-87:1.
`
`12. Response to Observation No. 12
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony that typically valve manufacturers tell
`
`physicians where to place replacement valves qualifies his testimony regarding
`
`physician discretion in placing prosthetic aortic valves. However, Dr. Hill testified
`
`that physicians are able to place devices “wherever they want outside or within the
`
`instructions for use.” Hill Tr., 90:16-22; see Hill Decl., ¶¶34, 68.
`
`13. Response to Observation No. 13
`
`Patent Owner’s observation regarding Dr. Hill’s testimony on what a person with a
`
`bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, but no medical training, would know
`
`about the placement of an aortic valve is irrelevant. Dr. Hill testified that he would
`
`assume “that a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering that was
`
`going to develop a mechanical valve would look at literature, would look at other
`
`valves.” Hill Tr., 92:5-10; see also, 86:8-87:1. Patent Owner suggests that Dr.
`
`Hill’s testimony be discounted because he did not “verify this assumption by talk-
`
`ing to people who actually were placing these valves;” however, this is irrelevant
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`in view of Dr. Hill’s educational and work experience involving the design and
`
`implantation of prosthetic aortic valves. See Hill Decl., ¶¶5-16, 25-29 and Hill Tr.,
`
`28:9-19, 31:8-33:19, 35:21-36:5, 38:12-41:3.
`
`14. Response to Observation No. 14
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding blockage of the coronary
`
`arteries qualifies his testimony that placement and positioning of prosthetic valve
`
`described in Schreck is within the discretion of the physician. However, Dr. Hill
`
`testified, “Schreck would be adapted for placement in different locations within the
`
`aortic root.” Hill Decl., ¶68. Further, Dr. Hill testified that “[p]lacement [of an arti-
`
`ficial valve] is based on, among other things, anatomical aspects of a particular pa-
`
`tient.” Hill Decl., ¶¶34, 68, 71; see also, Hill Tr., 90:16-22, 129:11-130:1.
`
`15. Response to Observation No. 15
`
`Patent Owner’s observation regarding Dr. Hill’s testimony on the sketch dated
`
`Dec. 21, 1998 (Ex. 2203) is irrelevant since the cited testimony does not address
`
`whether the sketch shows “’first and second spaced apart open ends’ as required by
`
`claim 16” or any structures recited in claim 16. Instead, Dr. Hill’s testimony is di-
`
`rected solely to whether the “ring with three intersecting lines” is a “typical way to
`
`represent a tricuspid valve in a schematic drawing.” Hill Tr., 95:16-96:1.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`16. Response to Observation No. 16
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding the use of tissue in the
`
`valve embodiments disclosed in the ‘228 patent contradicts his testimony that the
`
`claim term “membrane” does not include “tissue.” The cited testimony is not con-
`
`tradictory when placed in the proper context. When asked if the embodiments
`
`shown in Figures 6-13 of the ‘228 Patent “could be constructed utilizing tissue,”
`
`Dr. Hill responded that “they could be” and that “it’s likely that they could func-
`
`tion with tissue.” Hill Tr., 101:6-102:5. However, when Dr. Hill was asked if the
`
`interpretation of the claim term “membrane” includes “tissue,” he explained, “I
`
`think within this patent they’re used distinctly.” Hill Tr., 100:19-101:2. This is
`
`consistent with Dr. Hill’s testimony that one of ordinary skill reading the ‘228 pa-
`
`tent “would not understand the term membrane to include tissue, particularly when
`
`those terms are used so dissimilarly in the same document.” Hill Decl., ¶50.
`
`17. Response to Observation No. 17
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony about how the mechanical valve em-
`
`bodiments of the ‘228 patent open and close contradicts his testimony regarding
`
`the “means for mounting and moving” of claim 16. The cited testimony is not con-
`
`tradictory when placed in the proper context. The cited testimony does not address
`
`the “means for mounting and moving” of claim 16; instead, the questions presented
`
`to Dr. Hill focused on how pressure changes cause valves to open and close. See
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`Hill Tr., 104:25-106:15 (specifically, 105:14-15). With respect to the operation of a
`
`natural valve, Dr. Hill agreed that “it works in the same way” as the mechanical
`
`valve embodiments “in the sense that pressure changes between the left ventricle
`
`and the aorta cause the leaflets to open and close.” Hill Tr., 106:16-19. Dr. Hill
`
`agreed with the statement that “[t]here is no separate structure within the [tissue]
`
`leaflets which facilitate them opening and closing” (Hill Tr., 107:15-18); yet, this
`
`is consistent with his testimony that Figures 18 and 19 do not disclose a structure
`
`that would perform the function of “moving the membrane second end” between
`
`open and closed positions as required by claim 16 (Hill Decl., ¶52).
`
`18. Response to Observation No. 18
`
`Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding whether a surgically removed porcine valve could
`
`open and close in response to pressure changes within the aorta is irrelevant to his
`
`testimony regarding whether the embodiment of Figures 18 and 19 of the ‘228 pa-
`
`tent discloses a structure that “mov[es] the membrane second end” between open
`
`and closed positions as required by claim 16. See Hill Decl., ¶52. The cited testi-
`
`mony is directed to whether a porcine valve, when placed within a ring that “spans
`
`the height of the attachment from the bottom of the leaflet to the commissures” and
`
`maintains the semilunar shape of the attachment, would open and close in response
`
`to changes in pressure. Hill Tr., 113:24-115:16. The cited testimony does not dis-
`
`cuss a “means for moving” or the tissue embodiment shown in Figures 18 and 19.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`19. Response to Observation No. 19
`
`Patent Owner’s observation that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding the chordae
`
`tendineae qualifies his testimony regarding physician discretion in placing and po-
`
`sitioning the prosthetic valve described in Schreck is irrelevant. Dr. Hill already
`
`testified that “[p]lacement is based on, among other things, anatomical aspects of a
`
`particular patient.” Hill Decl., ¶¶34, 68, 71; see also, Hill Tr., 90:16-22, 129:11-
`
`130:1. Dr. Hill further explained that one would “want to minimize the impact to
`
`those structures [chordae tendineae]” but that it may not be completely necessary
`
`to avoid the chordae tendineae since the impact on the mitral valve depends on the
`
`degree of interaction and disruption. Hill Tr., 127:8-10, 130:6-131:3.
`
`20. Response to Observation No. 20
`
`Dr. Hill’s testimony that the membrane disclosed in Schreck is “not directly at-
`
`tached to 18 [supporting ring]” is irrelevant to his testimony that Wolfe discloses
`
`cuspids that comprise a valve “membrane” and that the valve seat assembly 14 and
`
`annular ring 56 constitute a “ring member” that seats about the aortic wall. Hill Tr.,
`
`134:11-13; Hill Decl., ¶¶61-62. The cited testimony is also irrelevant to the general
`
`issue of “whether the membrane and ring member in Wolfe are arranged in the
`
`same manner as the membrane and ring member in claim 16 of the ‘228 patent.”
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`21. Response to Observation No. 21
`
`Patent Owner suggests that because Wolfe lacks specific disclosures describing
`
`adaptions that would be necessary to use the disclosed valve as an aortic valve re-
`
`placement that Dr. Hill’s testimony that the “disclosed valve [in Wolfe] can be
`
`used to replace aortic valves” should be qualified. However, Dr. Hill’s testimony
`
`shows that Wolfe’s “Summary of the Invention” section states that the “invention
`
`disclosed can be adapted to replace the aortic valve.” Hill Tr., 135:21-136:9. Fur-
`
`ther, Dr. Hill testified that it was “well known that the valve of the type shown and
`
`described with respect to Wolfe could be used as an aortic valve.” Hill Decl., ¶63.
`
`22. Response to Observation No. 22
`
`Patent Owner suggests that Dr. Hill’s testimony on the clotting mechanism in
`
`Wolfe qualifies Dr. Hill’s testimony that “the Wolfe valve would properly seal and
`
`seat in a native aorta.” See Hill Decl., ¶64. The cited testimony regarding clots is
`
`irrelevant as it does not address the effect on the ability to seal, but instead focuses
`
`on complications such as stroke. See Hill. Tr., 137:24-138:11. Further, when asked
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art “would never rely upon the formation
`
`of clots to maintain a device in place,” Dr. Hill responded, “I wouldn’t say they
`
`would never” and then explained “I think clots are the beginning of the natural
`
`healing process, so they can be construed in multiple ways.” Hill Tr., 137:12-23.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`23. Response to Observation No. 23
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding the guidelines published by
`
`the European Society of Cardiology (“ESC”) contradicts his testimony that the
`
`Schreck valve extends into the ascending aorta. However, Dr. Hill explained de-
`
`scribing the sinotubular junction as the transition point from the aortic root to the
`
`ascending aorta, as was described in the ESC Guidelines, is “one interpretation.”
`
`Hill Tr. 62:15-25 (emphasis added); see also, Hill Tr. 156:20-161:3. Dr. Hill fur-
`
`ther explained that “in other descriptions, the ascending aorta includes the entirety
`
`of the aortic root.” Hill Tr. 165:1-13; see also, Hill Decl., ¶¶33, 65-68, 71.
`
`24. Response to Observation No. 24
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding placement of the Schreck
`
`valve in the “ascending aorta,” as defined in Ex. 2225, contradicts Dr. Hill’s testi-
`
`mony that the Schreck valve extends into the ascending aorta and qualifies his tes-
`
`timony that placement is within the discretion of the physician. The cited testimony
`
`is not contradictory or qualifying when placed in the proper context. Dr. Hill disa-
`
`greed with the hypothetical placement proposed by Patent Owner’s counsel, testi-
`
`fying that the Schreck device should be placed below the sinotubular junction so
`
`that it is in contact with the annulus. Hill Tr., 163:14-165:5. This is consistent with
`
`Dr. Hill’s testimony that “Schreck’s disclosure expressly states that the valve is de-
`
`livered to the host heart valve annulus” and “[t]he host heart valve annulus is with-
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`in the aortic root and forms part of the aortic wall.” Hill Decl., ¶66. . Dr. Hill ex-
`
`plained, “in other descriptions, the ascending aorta includes the entirety of the aor-
`
`tic root” and that “Schreck would be adapted for placement in different locations
`
`within the aortic root.” Hill Tr., 165:1-13; Hill Decl., ¶¶33, 65-68, 71.
`
`25. Response to Observation No. 25
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding the commissure and cup
`
`posts of the Schreck valve contradicts Dr. Hill’s “criticism of Dr. Timothy Catch-
`
`ings.” The cited testimony is not contradictory when placed in the proper context.
`
`Dr. Hill testified that Schreck discloses slight flexing as part of the intended valve
`
`operation and would not create regurgitation or peeling away of the ring from the
`
`aortic wall. Hill Decl., ¶69; see, Hill Tr., 173:17-174:19. Dr. Hill explained, “flex-
`
`ing of such rods is a well-known intended design attribute that is used to reduce
`
`stress on the valve leaflets.” Hill Decl., ¶70. When asked how to design a device
`
`that incorporates posts that are flexible enough to bend inward, but not so much
`
`that the valve leaflets misalign, Dr. Hill explained he would determine the right
`
`flexibility of the posts and would optimize the leaflet coaptation so that when they
`
`flex the leaflets are allowed to still coapt appropriately. Hill Tr., 174:24-175:8.
`
`26. Response to Observation No. 26
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding misalignment of leaflets
`
`disclosed in DiMatteo contradicts Dr. Hill’s criticism of Dr. Catchings description
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00395
`
`of leaflet misalignment. The cited testimony is not contradictory when placed in
`
`the proper context. While, Dr. Hill testified that a greater degree of deformation
`
`could cause misalignment of the leaflets, he explained that one “would take that
`
`into account when building this device” and that one could make the valve scaffold
`
`less flexible or change the cusp design to take account possible deformation. Hill
`
`Tr., 191:3-6, 191:19-192:6; see also, Hill Decl., ¶59.
`
`27. Response to Observation No. 27
`
`Patent Owner states that Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding misalignment of leaflets
`
`disclosed in DiMatteo contradicts any suggestion by Dr. Hill’s that leaflet misa-
`
`lignment stems from placement of the device. The cited testimony is not contradic-
`
`tory when placed in the proper context. While, Dr. Hill testified that a greater de-
`
`gree of deformation could cause misalignment of the leaflets, he explained that one
`
`“would take that into account when building this device” and that one could make
`
`the valve scaffold less flexible or change the cusp design to take account possible
`
`deformation. Hill Tr., 191:3-6, 191:19-192:6; see also, Hill Decl., ¶59.
`
`Date: January 9, 2015
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jack S. Barufka/
`Jack S. Barufka (Reg. No. 37,087)
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Tel. 703.770.7712; Fax 703.905.2500
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing “PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF ALEXANDER J. HILL, PH.D.” was served electronically
`
`through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Patent Review Processing System
`
`(PRPS) this 9th day of January, 2015 on the following counsel for Patent Owner,
`
`James J. Kernell
`Erickson Kernell Derusseau & Kleypas, LLC
`8900 State Line Road, Suite 500
`Leawood, KS 66206
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jack S. Barufka/
`Jack S. Barufka (Reg. No. 37,087)
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Tel. No. 703.770.7712
`Fax No. 703.905.2500
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Medtronic, Inc.
`Medtronic Vascular, Inc.
`Medtronic CoreValve, LLC
`
`Troy R. Norred:
`
`David Marcus
`Bartle & Marcus LLC
`1100 Main Street, Suite 2730
`Kansas City, MO 64105
`
`
`Date: January 9, 2015
`
`
`
`By:
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
