throbber
NeoChord Inc vNeoChord, Inc. v. 
`
`University of Maryland, Baltimore
`IPR2016‐00208
`
`PETITIONER NEOCHORD’S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVESDEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Neochord v University of Maryland BaltimoreNeochord v. University of Maryland, Baltimore
`
`IPR2016‐00208
`Petitioner Neochord Exhibit 1016
`
`

`

`
`
`Outline of ArgumentOutline of Argument
`
`• Speziali is prior art to the ‘386 PatentSpeziali is prior art to the  386 Patent.
`
`• “Percutaneously accessing” encompasses 
`
`procedures that utilize an incision in the skinprocedures that utilize an incision in the skin.
`• The Grounds based on Speziali should be 
`
`i dimaintained.
`
`• The Grounds based on Lattouf I should be 
`maintained.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Speziali is Exclusively Licensed 
`to Petitioner
`
`– Petition, p. 20, n. 6.
`• Claim 1 of Speziali PCT application as filed:p pp
`
`
`• NeoChord is the exclusive licensee of Spezialip
`
`
`
`– Ex. 1013, p. 11
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Speziali is prior art to the ‘386 PatentSpeziali is prior art to the  386 Patent
`
`— ‘386 Patent priority claim (Ex. 1001, 1:7‐10)
`
`— Speziali priority claim (Ex. 1006, 1:7‐14)
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Speziali is a PCT Nat’l Stage ApplSpeziali is a PCT Nat l Stage Appl
`
`• “An international application designating theAn international application designating the 
`
`United States shall have the effect, from its 
`
`international filing date under article 11 ofinternational filing date under article 11 of 
`the treaty, of a national application for patent 
`
`regularly filed in the Patent and Trademarkregularly filed in the Patent and Trademark 
`Office.” 
`
`
`– 35 U.S.C. § 363 cited at Reply, pp. 9‐10.§ p y, pp
`
`
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`There is no special definition of 
`
`““percutaneously accessing”l ”
`
`
`
`• Petition:Petition:
`
`– Petition, p. 12.
`• Board decision:
`
`– Decision, p. 8.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Ordinary meaning of “percutaneous” 
`“ his “through the skin”h h k ”
`
`
`
`
`• Petitioner’s expert:Petitioner s expert:
`
`– Ex. 2004, 24:4‐6.
`
`• Patentee’s expert:• Patentee s expert:
`
`– Ex. 2001, para. [0039].
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Ordinary meaning of “transmyocardial” Ordinary meaning of “transmyocardial” 
`
`is “through the heart wall”
`
`• Petitioner’s expert:Petitioner s expert:
`
`– Ex. 2004, 69:2‐5. 
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Patentee’s construction of 
`“percutaneously accessing” is wrong
`
`• Patentee:Patentee:
`
`
`
`– Response, p. 2Response, p. 2
`
`– Reply, p. 4
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Transmyocardial access does not 
`lrequire or relate to unbroken skinb k k
`
`
`
`
`• Patentee’s evidence:Patentee s evidence:
`
`– Ex. 2007, p. 8.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`The ‘386 Patent teaches use of an 
`fincision for percutaneous access
`
`
`• The ‘386 Patent:The  386 Patent: 
`
`– Col. 11, ll. 35‐52.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`The ‘386 Patent also teaches direct 
`dlneedle access can utilize an incisionl
`
`
`
`• The ‘386 Patent:The  386 Patent:
`
`– Ex. 1001, 7:40‐44.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`The Grounds based on Speziali 
`
`ld bhshould be maintainedd
`
`
`
`• Patentee’s sole argument on claims 1‐4 and 7‐14 is g
`that Speziali was not prior art.
`– Response, pp. 16.
`
`• Patentee’s only additional argument on claims 19• Patentee s only additional argument on claims 19, 
`22 and 23 relies entirely on construction of 
`“percutaneously” excluding any use of an incision. 
`– Response, pp. 13‐15.
`• Patentee confuses Speziali’s teaching of a line 
`
`incision for percutaneous access with Speziali’sincision for percutaneous access with Speziali s
`teaching of a stab incision for transmyocardial 
`access.
`
`Response pp 14 15– Response, pp. 14‐15.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Combining Speziali and Bachman 
`bis Obvious
`
`
`• Patentee’s sole argument that claims 5‐6, 18Patentee s sole argument that claims 5 6, 18 
`and 20‐21 is attorney argument that Speziali 
`and Bachman would not be combined: 
`– Response, pp. 19‐26; Reply, p. 17.
`
`
`
`• Speziali (transapical)Speziali (transapical)
`
`
`
`• Bachman (endovascular)Bachman (endovascular)
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`The Grounds based on Lattouf I 
`
`ld bhshould be maintainedd
`
`
`
`• Lattouf I in view of BachmanLattouf I in view of Bachman 
`– (claims 1, 4‐6 and 19‐21).
`• Lattouf I in view of CarpentierLattouf I in view of Carpentier
`
`– (claims 1‐9, 11‐15, 17‐19, 22 and 23).
`• Lattouf I in view of DowningLattouf I in view of Downing 
`
`– (claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 19).
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`All Secondary References Teach a 
`lSuture Directly With a Leafleth fl
`
`
`
`
`• Carpentier:p
`
`– Ex. 1009, p. 328.
`• Bachman:
`
`– Ex. 1008, Fig. 10.
`• Downing:
`
`– Ex. 1005, 15:6‐9.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Lattouf I also Teaches a Suture Directly 
`hwith a Leafletfl
`
`
`
`
`
`• Lattouf ILattouf I
`
`– Decision, p. 20, n. 12.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Lattouf I Discloses a Trocar for 
`d lTransmyocardial Access
`
`
`• Patentee’s expert:Patentee s expert:
`
`– Ex. 2001, para. 55.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Combining Lattouf I and Any of the 
`dSecondary References is Obviousf b
`
`
`
`
`• Patentee’s attorney arguments are not against y g g
`
`
`the combination, but only against the references 
`in isolation
`
`– Reply pp 18‐25Reply, pp. 18 25.
`• For claim 20 and 21, Bachman further teaches 
`how the device of Lattouf I could be used 
`
`dendovascularly. l l
`
`
`– Reply pp. 20‐22.
`
`• No separate evidence is presented for dependentNo separate evidence is presented for dependent 
`claims 2‐9, 10‐18 and 22‐23 for the grounds 
`based on Lattouf I.
`
`NeoChord v. Univ. of Maryland – IPR2016‐00208 
`NeoChord Ex. 1016
`
`Page 18
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket