`
`__________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MARITAL DEDUCTION TRUST
` Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), the Patent Owner hereby provides an
`
`Opposition to the Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder filed April 25, 2014 (Paper 2;
`
`herein “the Motion”). The Petitioners filed the Motion concurrently with its
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,593,417 (Paper 1;
`
`herein “the Second Petition”). The Petitioners earlier filed a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,593,417 in IPR2014-00100 (Paper 1; herein
`
`“the First Petition”). A Notice dated May 28, 2014 (Paper 12) authorized the filing
`
`of this Opposition at the same time as the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to
`
`the Second Petition. The Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is filed
`
`concurrently. This Opposition is therefore timely filed, and no fee is due with this
`
`Opposition. If, however, the Office believes that any additional fee is due, it is
`
`authorized to charge deposit account No. 50-5836.
`
`The Patent Owner does not oppose joinder in the event that the Board
`
`institutes trial with respect to at least one challenge in the Second Petition,
`
`provided that the schedule for joined proceedings is fair and reasonable.
`
`Nonetheless, the Patent Owner does not agree with the Statement of Material Facts
`
`set forth on pages 2-6 of the Motion. The Patent Owner therefore files this
`
`Opposition to deny specific facts, to provide a more complete accounting of the
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`facts, and to propose a fair and reasonable joined schedule for IPR2014-00100 and
`
`this IPR2014-00695.
`
`II. RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. On November 1, 2012, Endotach LLC (“hereinafter, Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a suit against Petitioner, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Northern District of California, San Jose Division, in a case titled Endotach LLC v.
`
`Medtronic, Inc., et al., No. 5:13-cv-03292-BLF.
`
`Response: Admitted, except that Endotach LLC is not the owner of the
`
`’417 Patent but instead the exclusive licensee. The owner of the ’417 Patent is the
`
`Marital Deduction Trust, created under the Valentine J. Rhodes Revocable Trust.
`
`Dr. Valentine J. Rhodes, now deceased, was a medical doctor who specialized in
`
`vascular surgery and the inventor of the ’417 Patent.
`
`2.
`
` On October 31, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (hereinafter, “First Petition”) requesting review of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and
`
`13 of the ’417 patent, now instituted as Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. Endotach LLC,
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00100 (“IPR2014-00100”). In the First Petition, Petitioner
`
`raised six grounds of unpatentability based on four prior art references—U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,104,399 to Lazarus (“Lazarus”), U.S. Patent No. 4,562,596 to
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`Kornberg (“Kornberg”), U.S. Patent No. 5,397,355 to Marin (“Marin”), and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,122,154 to Rhodes (“Rhodes ’154”).
`
`Response: Admitted.
`
`3. While a decision on the First Petition was pending, on February 18,
`
`2014, Petitioner’s litigation counsel, Karen McDaniel of the Briggs and Morgan
`
`firm, received Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions (Exh. 1007). The
`
`Infringement Contentions cite to claim construction rulings in another litigation
`
`involving the same patent (Endotach LLC v. Cook Medical Inc., 1:12-cv-1630-
`
`LJM-DKL, Southern District of Indiana (Dkt. No. 102)) (hereinafter, “Cook
`
`District Court case”). In the Infringement Contentions, Patent Owner posits that
`
`the term “engage” means “to partly embed, interlock or enmesh,” while the term
`
`“tightly engage” in claim 1 excludes penetration that perforates or creates holes
`
`through the wall. Exh. 1007, pg. 16.
`
`Response: Admitted, but the Patent Owner adds the following for the sake
`
`of completeness:
`
`(a) The claim construction ruling in the Cook District Court case was
`
`issued April 10, 2013 – more than ten months before the Patent Owner
`
`served its Infringement Contentions on the Petitioner’s litigation counsel.
`
`That claim construction ruling (Ex. 2004) was a non-confidential document
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`made publicly available on PACER on or about April 10, 2013.
`
`Furthermore, several other publicly available pleadings from the Cook
`
`District Court case revealed the Patent Owner’s claim construction position
`
`regarding “engage” and “tightly engage.” For example, on December 21,
`
`2012 and January 24, 2013, respectively, the Patent Owner filed on PACER
`
`publicly available copies of its Opening and Responsive Claim Construction
`
`Briefs, which detail the Patent Owner’s claim construction positions
`
`regarding “engage” and “tightly engage.” (Ex. 2002 at 31-33; Ex. 2003 at
`
`21-23.) Further, on June 28, 2013, Cook filed on PACER a publicly
`
`available copy of the Patent Owner’s infringement contentions for the ’417
`
`Patent that detail the Patent Owner’s claim construction positions regarding
`
`“tightly engage” as related to Cook’s accused products. (Ex. 2005 at 21-26.)
`
`(b) Every paragraph of the ’417 Patent specification containing the phrase
`
`“tightly engage” also says either “tightly engage, e.g., burrow slightly into”
`
`or “tightly engage (and not necessarily penetrate).” (’417 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`at 4:10-25, 4:26-38, 7:9-33, 9:1:17.) Further, it is a stated object of the
`
`invention in the ’417 Patent “to provide anchoring means for intraluminal
`
`medical devices to be secured within in a vessel, duct, or lumen of a living
`
`being, and which anchoring means does not pose a significant risk of
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`perforating the tissue of the vessel, duct, or lumen.” (Id. at 3:53-58). It is
`
`also stated more specifically in the ’417 Patent specification, that:
`
`If some penetration is deemed desirable the height of the
`projections is selected so that their penetrating points do not
`penetrate too deeply into the artery wall. In this regard, the
`height of the projections is selected so that they do not penetrate
`into the adventicial or medial layers of the artery wall, but can
`penetrate its intima.
`
`(Id. at 8:25-31). The terms “intima,” “medial,” and “adventicial” here refer
`
`to the innermost, middle, and outer layers of an artery wall, respectively.
`
`4. On the basis of Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions, Petitioner’s
`
`litigation counsel performed a prior art search in March 2014 that uncovered
`
`several prior art references that show projections that partly embed, interlock or
`
`enmesh in the surrounding vessel. Among those references are: U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,562,725 to Schmitt (“Schmitt”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,370,657 to Irie (“Irie”)
`
`(attached hereto as Exhibits 1011 and 1012). Petitioner was not in possession of
`
`these two references prior to the Petition’s filing date of October 31, 2013 for
`
`IPR2014-00100.
`
`Response: The Patent Owner has insufficient information to either admit or
`
`deny the assertions in paragraph 4 of the Motion and therefore denies the same.
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`5. On March 26, 2014, the Board instituted trial on claims 1, 2, 9, 10,
`
`and 13 of the '417 patent (“IPR2014-00100 Decision”) on two of the six grounds of
`
`unpatentability, based on only two of the prior art references—Kornberg and
`
`Rhodes ’154—in the First Petition. Exh. 1009, pg. 15. The Board did not,
`
`however, authorize an inter partes review on the remaining grounds of
`
`unpatentability, reasoning that the remaining four grounds “are redundant in light
`
`of the grounds on the basis of which [the Board] institute[d] inter partes review of
`
`the same claims” in IPR2014-00100. Id. at pg. 14.
`
`Response: Admitted.
`
`6. Concurrently with this Motion, Petitioner is filing its Second Petition,
`
`challenging the same claims (claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 of the '417 patent).
`
`Response: Admitted.
`
`7.
`
`The Second Petition asserts a prior art reference (Lazarus) that was
`
`included in the First Petition, but was not instituted for trial in IPR2014-00100
`
`Decision. While Lazarus was deemed redundant with the references instituted for
`
`trial in IPR2014-00100, it is not.
`
`Response: The Patent Owner admits that the Second Petition asserts
`
`challenges relying on Lazarus. The Patent Owner also admits that the First
`
`Petition asserted challenges relying on Lazarus, and that the Board did not institute
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`trial on those challenges for the reason that they were redundant with other
`
`challenges for which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner denies the Petitioner’s
`
`assertion that Lazarus is not redundant to the references for which trial was
`
`instituted. The Patent Owner adds the following for the sake of completeness:
`
`(a) The two Lazarus-based challenges in this Second Petition are exactly
`
`the same as the two Lazarus-based challenges presented in the First Petition
`
`and determined by the Board to be redundant.
`
`(b) The deadline for the Petitioners to have filed a request for rehearing of
`
`the Institution Decision in IPR2010-00100 was April 24, 2013. The
`
`Petitioners did not file a request for rehearing. Instead, the Petitioners filed
`
`the Second Petition and the Motion on April 25, 2013.
`
`8.
`
`The Second Petition also asserts Schmitt and Irie, two references that
`
`were uncovered by the search noted above.
`
`Response: The Patent Owner admits that the Second Petition asserts
`
`Schmitt and Irie but has insufficient information to either admit or deny the other
`
`assertions in paragraph 8 of the Motion and therefore denies the same.
`
`9.
`
`The Second Petition is being filed to address new information that
`
`came to light when Endotach provided Medtronic with its claim construction
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`position on the term “tightly engage” in connection with infringement contentions
`
`in parallel (now stayed) district court litigation.
`
`Response: The Patent Owner denies that any new information regarding its
`
`claim construction positions on “tightly engage” came to light when Endotach
`
`provided Medtronic its infringement contentions. The Patent Owner has
`
`insufficient information to either admit or deny the other assertions in paragraph 9
`
`of the Motion and therefore denies the same.
`
`10. Petitioner attempted to address this new information in IPR2014-
`
`00100 by submitting supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a).
`
`However, the Board denied the Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a
`
`motion to submit supplemental information on the basis that Petitioner could not
`
`raise a new ground of patentability after institution of a trial, reasoning that 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123(a) is not the proper vehicle to address Patent Owner’s claim
`
`construction in the district court case.
`
`Response: Admitted, except for the characterization of the Board’s reasons
`
`for denying the Petitioners’ request for authorization to file a motion to submit
`
`supplemental information. The Board’s decision denying the Petitioner’s request
`
`states, inter alia, “Petitioner may not raise a new ground of patentability after
`
`institution of a trial.” (IPR2014-00100 Paper 18 at 4.)
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`11. Petitioner contacted Patent Owner the day of this filing to determine
`
`whether Patent Owner would agree to this motion to enable the Board to fully
`
`consider the issues germane to the co-pending litigation, assuming the Board
`
`would entertain it.
`
`Response: The Patent Owner admits that the Petitioner contacted the Patent
`
`Owner on the day the Motion was filed to determine whether the Patent Owner
`
`would agree to the Motion but denies the remainder of paragraph 11.
`
`12. Patent Owner indicated that it would not have time to review the
`
`Petition, but requested that Petitioner send an advanced copy, which Petitioner
`
`complied with. Patent Owner further indicated that, subject to revision after
`
`having time to evaluate the Second Petition and this Motion, Patent Owner would
`
`not be opposed to joinder so long as the schedule for a joined proceeding is
`
`acceptable and provided Patent Owner adequate time to respond to the challenges
`
`in the Second Petition. Petitioner responded that it would accommodate Patent
`
`Owner’s request, as further set forth herein.
`
`Response: Admitted.
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT
`
`While
`
`the Patent Owner does not agree with
`
`the assertions,
`
`characterizations, and so-called evidence cited in the “ARGUMENT” portion
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`(pages 8-15) of the Motion, the Patent Owner does not oppose the requested relief
`
`if (1) the Board first decides to grant the Second Petition at least in part after
`
`consideration of the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and (2) the schedule
`
`for the joined proceedings is fair and reasonable. As an acceptable schedule, the
`
`Patent Owner proposes the following, assuming that the Board can enter an
`
`institution decision on the Second Petition by about August 25, 2014:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Current
`
`
`
`Proposed
`
`DUE DATE 1:
`
`July 25, 2014
`
`Oct. 3, 2014
`
`DUE DATE 2:
`
`Sept. 25, 2014
`
`Nov. 17, 2014
`
`DUE DATE 3:
`
`Not Needed
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 4:
`
`Oct. 10, 2014
`
`Nov. 26, 2014
`
`DUE DATE 5:
`
`Oct. 23, 2014
`
`Dec. 5, 2014
`
`DUE DATE 6:
`
`Oct. 30, 2014
`
`Dec. 12, 2014
`
`DUE DATE 7:
`
`Nov. 20, 2014
`
`Dec. 19, 2014
`
`DUE DATE 3 is not needed because the Patent Owner does not intend to file
`
`a motion to amend. As a result, some of the tasks due on the other due dates are
`
`simplified, thereby permitting some compression in the schedule.
`
`This proposed schedule is similar to the one jointly proposed to the Board by
`
`the Petitioners and the Patent Owner in advance of the May 22, 2014 conference
`
`call in this case, but this proposed schedule follows the guidance in the Board’s
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-000695
`Patent No. 5,593,417
`
`
`
`May 28, 2014 order (Paper 12) in that DUE DATE 7 occurs before the Christmas
`
`holiday.
`
`Date: 2014 June 25
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / M.C. Phillips /
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Registration No. 43,403
`
`Brett M. Pinkus, Reg. No. 59,980
`
`Jonathan T. Suder (pro hac vice)
`
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke
`604 E. Fourth Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, TX 76102
`Telephone: (817) 334-0400
`Facsimile: (817) 334-0401
`pinkus@fsclaw.com
`jts@fsclaw.com
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Reg. No. 43,403
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
`9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 560
`Portland, Oregon 97223
`Telephone: 503-964-1129
`Facsimile: 503-517-9919
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 25, 2014, copies of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER and all documents filed
`
`with it were served via electronic mail, as agreed to by counsel, upon the following
`
`counsel for the Petitioner:
`
`Jack Barufka: jack.barufka@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Ngai Zhang: ngai.zhang@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Evan Finkel: evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
`
`with a courtesy copy to docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com.
`
`/ M.C. Phillips /
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Registration No. 43,403