UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`C.R. BARD, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`C.R. BARD, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01660
`Patent 8,257,325 B2
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner C.R. Bard, Inc. hereby requests
`
`rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.108 (Paper 9, February 9, 2016)(“Decision”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits the Board overlooked or misapprehended
`
`important points regarding the ‘325 patent (Ex.1001), the prior art, Mr. Tallarida’s
`
`testimony (Ex.1009), and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of invention (“POSA”), such that the Board improperly concluded that the
`
`information presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing that any of the challenged claims of the
`
`‘325 patent are unpatentable. Paper 9, p.2.
`
`II.
`IMPORTANT POINTS OVERLOOKED OR MISAPPREHENDED
`A. The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended That The ‘325 patent
`Describes An Access Port That Can Be Constructed To Include X-ray
`Discernable Indicia Indicating That The Assembly Is Rated For Power
`Injection
`
`The Board stated that “[t]he Petition and Mr. Tallarida’s cited testimony do not
`
`explain how the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS would have been modified so
`
`as to be rated for power injection, nor do they point to any disclosure in Powers
`
`that would have suggested how such a modification would have been made.” Paper
`
`9, p. 12. The Board overlooked and misapprehended that the ‘325 patent does not
`
`disclose how to construct an access port, and only provides general information
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`regarding the elements of an access port. (Ex.1001).
`
`The ‘325 patent is directed to “a venous access port assembly that provides a
`
`medical practitioner with the capability to discern an important property of the port
`
`assembly after the port assembly has been implanted into a patient.” Ex.1001,
`
`1:33-36. “One such characteristic could be power injectable capability; that is, an
`
`indication that the venous access port is rated for the power injection of contrast
`
`fluid. Power injection capability can be indicated with the letters ‘CT,’ for
`
`‘computed tomography,’ or ‘contrast enhanced computed tomography.’” Ex.1001,
`
`1:59-64. Thus, the ports disclosed in the ‘325 patent could be constructed with
`
`indicia, such as letters “CT”, to show the port is rated for power injection.
`
`The ‘325 patent, being written with respect to a POSA, does not provide details
`
`regarding port construction or use, but discloses general structure of access ports.
`
`Ex.1001, 3:24-45. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well
`
`known in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech,
`
`Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986); and
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
`
`1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`The ‘325 patent discloses similar structures to the Titanium Implanted Port
`
`including an access port with a flange that can be constructed to include X-ray
`
`discernable indicia. Pet. 24-26. Power injectable ports and rating of ports as being
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`power injectable, such as by the use of letters “CT”, were clearly known at the time
`
`the application for the ‘325 patent was filed. Thus, it was well within the
`
`knowledge of a POSA how to construct a port to withstand the high pressures and
`
`flow rates used for injection of contrast fluid, such as disclosed by Powers, so that
`
`the port could be rated as power injectable. Ex.1009, ¶¶148,196-198; Pet.7, 31.
`
`Like the ‘325 patent, each of PORTS, Powers and PowerPort discloses access
`
`ports. Pet. 18-21. Powers and PowerPort disclose power injectable ports. Pet. 20-
`
`21, 29. Because the Board overlooked the limited disclosure of the ‘325 patent,
`
`and that it does not distinguish between conventional access ports and access ports
`
`that can be marked as rated for power injection, the Board misapprehended the
`
`knowledge of a POSA, and that the ‘325 patent was written with respect to the
`
`knowledge of a POSA.
`
`B. The Board Overlooked And Misapprehended The Knowledge Of A
`POSA, And That A POSA Would Have Known How To Modify A
`Conventional Access Port So As To Be Rated For Power Injection.
`
`The claims of the ‘325 patent are directed to an access port assembly with
`
`indicia that the assembly is rated for power injection. Indeed, the ‘325 patent
`
`discloses and claims structures having the same elements as the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port, e.g., a base, a flange, a reservoir and a septum. Compare Titanium
`
`Implanted Port (Ex.1002) with ‘325 patent (Ex.1001), Fig. 5; Ex.1009, ¶¶26-36,
`
`47-75; Pet. 12, 24. Moreover, power injectable and non-power injectable ports
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`comprise similar structures, such that a POSA would have known that a Titanium
`
`Implanted Port could be constructed to handle power injection as taught by
`
`Powers. Ex.1009, ¶165.
`
`As discussed in the Section A above, the ‘325 patent does not disclose how
`
`to modify conventional access port structures to be rated for power injection. All
`
`that the ‘325 patent discloses is that the port can include indicia that it is rated for
`
`power injection, i.e., constructed as a power port by being rated for power
`
`injection. The ‘325 patent does not disclose how to make or use power injectable
`
`ports. Rather, the ‘325 patent merely discloses that a port can have indicia visible
`
`by X-ray examination, identifying a characteristic of the port. One such
`
`characteristic could be power injectable capability.
`
`No distinction is made in the ‘325 patent between the structures of power
`
`injectable and non-power injectable ports:
`
`Venous access ports for the infusion and/or withdrawal of fluids from
`
`a patient are well-known, secured to the proximal end of an implanted
`
`catheter. …. The ports are assemblies of a needle-impenetrable
`
`housing with a discharge port in fluid communication with a catheter
`
`and a reservoir within the port housing, and provide a subcutaneous
`
`self-sealing septum that defines an access site for multiple needle
`
`sticks through the covering skin tissue of the patient, through the
`
`septum, and into the reservoir, without the need to continuously
`
`search for new access sites. Examples of such ports are disclosed, for
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,704,103; 4,762,517; 4,778,452;
`
`5,185,003; 5,213,574; and 5,637,102. Ex.1001, 1:19-32.
`
`The ‘325 patent discloses structures common to venous access ports, and
`
`makes no distinction between power injectable and non-power injectable ports,
`
`other than it is desirable to provide an identification that a venous access port is
`
`rated for the power injection. As the Tallarida Declaration establishes, a port that is
`
`rated for the power injection is constructed to withstand the high pressures and
`
`flow rates associated with power injection, such as disclosed by Powers, so that the
`
`port could be rated as power injectable. Ex.1009, ¶¶148, 196-198.
`
`Thus, as power injectable ports and rating of ports as being power injectable,
`
`were clearly known at the time the application for the ‘325 patent was filed, it was
`
`well within the knowledge of a POSA how to construct a port to withstand the high
`
`pressures used for injection of contrast fluid, such as disclosed by Powers, so that
`
`the port could be rated as power injectable. Pet. 24-26, 31-34. It would have been
`
`obvious for a POSA at the time of the invention in view of Powers to provide a
`
`power injectable port with X-ray discernable indicia such as alphanumeric
`
`characters which indicates, under X-ray examination, that the power injectable port
`
`is adapted to withstand high pressures and flow rates used for injection of contrast
`
`fluid. Ex.1009, ¶199, 228, 249; Pet. 24-26, 31-34.
`
`As the Board is well aware, the specification shall contain a written description
`
`of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to
`
`which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
`
`same. § 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph. Because the ‘325 patent specification does
`
`not provide disclosure as how to make and use ports that are rated for power
`
`injection, this is further evidence that the construction of power ports was within
`
`the skill of the art at the time of filing of the ‘325 patent so that no written
`
`description/enablement of the making and using of power injectable ports need be
`
`disclosed in the ‘325 patent. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is
`
`well known in the art. Thus, the disclosure of the ‘325 patent supports Mr.
`
`Tallarida’s testimony that, “A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`that the Titanium Implanted Port in view of Powers could be constructed to handle
`
`power injection. Specifically, Titanium Implanted Port would be modified in view
`
`of Powers to handle the higher pressures and flow rates associated with power
`
`injection for injecting contrast media.” Ex.1009, ¶¶146-148, 165, 199; Pet. 31-34.
`
`By overlooking and misapprehending the disclosure of the ‘325 patent and
`
`the knowledge of a POSA, the Board erred by providing Mr. Tallarida’s testimony
`
`little weight, when Mr. Tallarida unequivocally testified (¶s are from Ex.1009):
`
`148. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the
`
`Titanium Implanted Port in view of Powers could be constructed to handle
`
`power injection. Specifically, Titanium Implanted Port would be modified
`
`in view of Powers to handle the higher pressures and flow rates associated
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with power injection for injecting contrast media, e.g., for a CT scan.
`
`149. To identify the Titanium Implanted Port in view of Powers as a power
`
`injectable port, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Powers to provide the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port with X-ray discernable indicia configured to indicate, under
`
`X-ray examination, that the assembly is rated for power injection. 151.
`
`Powers discloses a power injectable port with X-ray discernable indicia
`
`configured to indicate, under X-ray examination, that the assembly is rated
`
`for power injection.
`
`165. [A]s both PORTS and Powers disclose venous access ports comprising
`
`a housing, a base, a discharge port, a reservoir and a septum, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have known that the Titanium Implanted Port
`
`could be constructed to handle power injection as taught by Powers.
`
`196. Powers discloses a power injectable port with X-ray discernable
`
`indicia (alphanumeric characters) on the port, which indicates, under X-ray
`
`examination, that the assembly is power injectable, i.e., adapted to withstand
`
`high pressures used for injection of contrast fluid.
`
`198. PowerPort also discloses a power injectable port with X-ray
`
`discernable indicia (alphanumeric characters), which indicates, under X-ray
`
`examination, that the assembly is power injectable, i.e., adapted to withstand
`
`higher pressures and increased flow rates used for injection of contrast fluid.
`
`199. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of invention in view of Powers and PowerPort to provide the
`
`Titanium Implanted Port with alphanumeric X-ray discernable indicia, such
`
`as “CT” or “C” and “T”, which indicates, under X-ray examination, that the
`
`power injectable port is adapted to withstand high pressures and increased
`
`flow rates used for injection of contrast fluid.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`A POSA would have known that the Titanium Implanted Port has the same
`
`structural elements as a power injectable port, e.g., see Powers, and would have
`
`known that the Titanium Implanted Port could be constructed to handle power
`
`injection. Ex.1009, ¶165. Accordingly, the Board overlooked the information
`
`presented in the Petition and supporting exhibits which shows that there is more
`
`than a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the
`
`unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ‘325 patent.
`
`C. The Board Overlooked Mr. Tallarida’s First Hand Personal Knowledge
`Of Titanium Implanted Ports
`
`The Board overlooked that Mr. Tallarida has first-hand personal knowledge of
`
`the structure and functions of the Titanium Implanted Port (Ex.1002) as Mr.
`
`Tallarida was involved with its production. Ex.1009, ¶¶12, 14, 16, 49-51. Mr.
`
`Tallarida was also involved with the production of the power injectable PowerPort
`
`(Ex.1004). Ex.1009, ¶17. Thus, Mr. Tallarida has first-hand personal knowledge
`
`of the structures of both power injectable and non-power injectable ports.
`
`The Board appears to have misapprehended the similarities between non-power
`
`injectable ports and power injectable ports. The basic structures are the same as
`
`shown by the ports disclosed in the ‘325 patent, PORTS, POWERS and
`
`HICKMAN. Each of the disclosed ports comprises a housing with a base, a
`
`reservoir, a discharge port extending from the reservoir and a septum. Exs. 1001,
`
`1002, 1003, 1004, 1017. Specifically, the structures of the Titanium Implanted
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Port and the port described in the ‘325 patent are substantially the same. Ex.1009,
`
`¶¶26-36, 52-71; Pet. 11-12, 24-26. The difference between a non-power injectable
`
`port and a power injectable port is that a power injectable port is constructed to
`
`withstand high pressures and flow rates used for injection of contrast fluid. Ex.
`
`1003, 3:42-59; Ex.1016, p.7/65 ([0034]). A POSA would have known that the
`
`Titanium Implanted Port could be constructed so that it could be rated for power
`
`injection, as clearly stated by Mr. Tallarida. Ex.1009, ¶¶148, 165; Pet. 24-26.
`
`The portions of Mr. Tallarida’s unrebutted testimony reproduced in Section B.
`
`are of an expert who has first-hand personal knowledge of the structures of power
`
`injectable and non-power injectable ports, how to construct power injectable and
`
`non-power injectable ports, and how to incorporate X-ray discernable indicia into a
`
`power injectable port, e.g., with voids in the shapes of the letters “C” and “T,”
`
`which upon X-ray examination indicate the assembly is rated for power injection.
`
`Accordingly, the Board overlooked the information presented in the Petition
`
`and supporting exhibits which establishes that there is more than a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘325 patent.
`
`D. The Board Overlooked The Stated Functions Of The Orientation Holes
`And That The Structure Of The Orientation Holes In The Titanium
`Implanted Port Are Voids Extending Through A Titanium Flange That
`Are X-Ray Discernable Indicia.
`
`The Board overlooked Mr. Tallarida’s testimony that “orientation holes are X-
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`ray discernable indicia configured to indicate, under X-ray examination, the
`
`orientation of the assembly.” Ex.1009, ¶¶62-67; Pet. 18-19, 32. The orientation
`
`holes indicate the side of the access port where the catheter is or can be connected,
`
`and also are capable of receiving sutures for securing the port when implanted.
`
`Ex.1009, ¶¶66-67. The flange of the Titanium Implanted Port is made of titanium
`
`(Ex.1009, ¶¶60, 133; Pet. 28) and the orientation holes extend completely through
`
`the flange, such that the holes would be visible by X-ray. Ex.1009, ¶¶ 62-65; Pet.
`
`30. Certainly, holes in a titanium metal flange would be naturally (inherently)
`
`visible by X-ray examination. Ex.1001, 2:19-20; Pet. 12, 18-19. Powers discloses
`
`that suture apertures 66 may be positioned so as to identify the access port 10 after
`
`subcutaneous implantation. Ex.1009, ¶91; Pet. 15, 20, 25.
`
`Thus, not only has the Board overlooked the testimony of Mr. Tallarida, the
`
`Board misapprehended the inherent function of the orientation holes in the
`
`Titanium Implanted Port, which under X-ray examination would indicate to a
`
`POSA the orientation of the assembly. And further, the Board overlooked and/or
`
`misapprehended that the orientation holes on the Titanium Implanted Port are
`
`voids extending through a titanium flange that are X-ray discernable. Thus, the
`
`Board erred when it held that “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not
`
`shown sufficiently that the suture slots and orientation holes in the flange of the
`
`Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS function as X-ray discernable indicia.” Paper
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`9, p. 12. A POSA would have known that the orientation holes on the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port are inherently X-ray discernable indicia.
`
`E. The Board Misapprehended Petitioner’s Arguments With Respect To
`PowerPort, Sayre And Meyer
`
`Petitioner cited PowerPort Guidelines for CT Technologists (Ex.1004,
`
`“PowerPort”), U.S. Patent No. 6,826,257 B2 (Ex.1007, “Sayre”), and French
`
`Patent No. 1,509,165, (Ex.1005, “Meyer” with English translation Ex.1006) as
`
`examples of voids in the shape of alphanumeric characters. Pet. 15-18, 20-24.
`
`PowerPort (Ex.1004) discloses a power injectable port with X-ray
`
`discernable indicia, i.e., voids in the shapes of the letters “C” and “T,” which upon
`
`X-ray examination indicate the assembly is rated for power injection. Ex.1009,
`
`¶¶93-101. Sayre (Ex.1007) and Meyer (Exs.1005 & 1006) similarly depict voids in
`
`the shapes of alpha numeric characters. Ex.1009, ¶¶102-121; Pet. 15-18, 20-24.
`
`A POSA would have readily understood that the voids in the flange of
`
`Titanium Implanted Port could have any shape which permitted sutures to pass
`
`through, including alphanumeric shapes as shown in PowerPort, Sayre and Meyer.
`
`Pet. 18-24, 29, 47, 50, 57. Further, a POSA would have known that PowerPort
`
`discloses voids visible by X-ray in the shape of alphanumeric characters “C” and
`
`“T”, which a POSA would have understood indicates that the port is power
`
`injectable. Ex.1004; Ex.1009, ¶¶138-139, 148-166.
`
`As discussed above, a POSA would have known that the orientation holes in
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`the Titanium Implanted Port are X-ray discernable indicia. It would have been
`
`readily apparent to a POSA that the shape of the orientation holes in the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port could be changed to indicate another characteristic, including that
`
`the port is power injectable using voids in the shapes of “C” and “T” as disclosed
`
`in PowerPort and suggested by Powers. Powers discloses that suture apertures
`
`may be positioned to identify the access port after subcutaneous implantation.
`
`Ex.1009, ¶91; Pet. 15, 20, 25. Sayre discloses apertures within an X-ray
`
`discernable material to provide X-ray readable indicia that can also aid in
`
`indicating orientation and receive sutures. Ex.1009, ¶¶255; Pet. 22-23, 50-54.
`
`Thus, a POSA would have known that the orientation holes in the flange of
`
`the Titanium Implanted Port are capable of receiving sutures as well as showing
`
`the orientation of the port under X-rays. A POSA would have known that these
`
`holes in the flange could have been modified to provide the additional function of
`
`identifying a port as rated for power injection. Ex.1009, ¶¶183-186.
`
`F. The Board Overlooked Mr. Tallarida’s Testimony That It Would Have
`Been Obvious To A POSA To Modify The Flange Of The Titanium
`Implanted Port To Include X-Ray Identifiable Alphanumeric
`Characters
`
`The Board stated that “we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not
`
`provided adequate reasoning based on Powers and PowerPort for modifying the
`
`Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS to include X-ray discernable indicia of power
`
`injection capability in the flange. See Prelim. Resp. 23–29 [...] we are not
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill, in
`
`view of Powers, would have modified the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port to
`
`include X-ray discernable indicia in the form of voids indicating that the port is
`
`rated for power injection, as Petitioner proposes.” These statements are incorrect
`
`as the Board overlooked Mr. Tallarida’s testimony to the contrary (¶s are from
`
`Ex.1009):
`
`210. Titanium Implanted Port includes holes (cutouts/voids) in the
`
`flange which, under X-ray examination, function as indicia of
`
`orientation. Exhibit 1002.
`
`214. Titanium Implanted Port already has indicia extending through the
`
`height of the flange of the port which, under X-ray examination,
`
`indicate the orientation of the port.
`
`215. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in view of PORTS in view of Powers to indicate that the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port is power injectable by including X-ray discernable
`
`indicia comprising alphanumeric characters in the form of cutouts
`
`(voids) extending through the height of the flange of the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port to indicate, under X-ray examination, that the assembly
`
`is rated for power injection, because the flange of the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port is already known as a location for X-ray discernable
`
`indicia created by voids extending from the top of the flange to the
`
`bottom of the flange.
`
`216. The obviousness of including X-ray identifiable indicia in the
`
`form of cutouts (voids) in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port in
`
`view of Powers to indicate that the assembly is rated for power
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`injection is emphasized by PowerPort’s disclosure of X-ray discernable
`
`indicia comprising alphanumeric characters in the form of cutouts
`
`(voids) indicating that a port is power injectable.
`
`217. Indicia in the form of cutouts (voids) in the flange of the Titanium
`
`Implanted Port would be expected to provide high contrast so that the
`
`alphanumeric characters would be readily discernable, under X-ray
`
`examination, after implantation.
`
`218. Moreover, the indicia in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port
`
`are already structured and arranged so as to be visually discernable
`
`prior to implantation of the port as well as to be X-ray discernable after
`
`implantation.
`
`219. Accordingly, the same expected result would be understood to be
`
`obtained with respect to indicia indicating that the assembly is rated for
`
`power injection extending through the height of the flange from the top
`
`to the bottom surface of the modified Titanium Implanted Port as for the
`
`indicia already included in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port.
`
`Moreover, as pointed out in Section E. above, the Petition points out that
`
`Powers discloses that suture apertures may be positioned to identify the access port
`
`after subcutaneous implantation; and Sayre discloses apertures within an X-ray
`
`discernable material to provide X-ray readable indicia that can also aid in
`
`indicating orientation and receive sutures.
`
`Accordingly, the Board overlooked and/or misapprehended Mr. Tallarida’s
`
`testimony that a POSA would have modified the flange of the Titanium Implanted
`
`Port to include alphanumeric voids. Ex.1009, ¶¶210, 214-219. It was well within
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`the knowledge of a POSA that the alphanumeric voids could be added in addition
`
`to or in place of the existing suture slots and/or orientation holes, since the
`
`alphanumeric voids would still enable implantation and securing the port while
`
`providing a further function of identifying that the port is rated for power injection.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing of the
`
`Board’s Decision, and for the reasons set forth in the Petition, requests the Board
`
`to institute IPR2015-01660.
`
`Dated: March 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael J. Fink/
`
`
`
`Michael J. Fink
`
`Registration No. 31,827
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`Email: MFink@gbpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Arnold Turk/
`Arnold Turk
`Registration No. 33,094
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`Email: ATurk@gbpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner C.R. Bard, Inc.
`
`
`{R46637 02679690.DOC 4}
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the attached Petitioner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`Pursuant To 37 C.F.R § 42.71(d) was served as of the below date by electronic
`
`mail on the lead and back-up counsels of the Patent Owners as follows:
`
`
`
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`Alfred W. Zaher
`Shawn Li
`Two Liberty Place
`50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
`Philadelphia, PA 19102-2555
`Alfred.Zaher@bipc.com
`Shawn.Li@bipc.com
`
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`Jonathan R. Bowser
`Roger H. Lee
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314-2727
`Jon.Bowser@bipc.com
`Roger.Lee@bipc.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
` /Michael J. Fink/
`Michael J. Fink
`Registration No. 31,827
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
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
