Wallace Wu (State Bar No. 220110)
`wallace.wu@aporter.com
`Marty Koresawa (State Bar No. 291967)
`marty.koresawa@aporter.com
`Allen Secretov (State Bar No. 301655)
`allen.secretov@aporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel.: (213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`Matthew Wolf (pro hac vice)
`matthew.wolf@aporter.com
`Edward Han (pro hac vice)
`ed.han@aporter.com
`John Nilsson (pro hac vice)
`john.nilsson@aporter.com
`Marc Cohn (pro hac vice)
`marc.cohn@aporter.com
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 942-5000
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
`Case No. 8:16-cv-0730-CJC-GJS
`and
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
`CORPORATION’S AND BOSTON
`SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO EDWARDS’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1-12
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`Edwards Lifesciences v. Boston Scientific Scimed
`U.S. Patent No. 6,915,560
`IPR2017-00072 EX. 2011
`
`

`

`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
`Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (collectively,
`“Boston Scientific”) hereby object and respond to the First Set of Interrogatories
`(Nos. 1-12) served by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (“Edwards”).
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Boston Scientific’s investigation, discovery, and analysis are ongoing, and
`Boston Scientific’s response to each of these interrogatories is based on information
`and documents presently available to Boston Scientific after a reasonable
`investigation. Boston Scientific reserves the right to supplement or amend these
`responses in the event that further information and/or documents are disclosed or
`discovered.
`Specific objections to the First Set of Interrogatories are made on an individual
`basis in the response below. In addition to these specific objections, Boston
`Scientific makes certain continuing objections (“General Objections”) to Edwards’s
`“Definitions” and “General Instructions” for interrogatories. These General
`Objections are hereby incorporated by reference into the responses made to each
`separate interrogatory. For particular emphasis, Boston Scientific has, from time to
`time, expressly included one or more of the General Objections in certain of its
`response below. Boston Scientific’s response to each individual interrogatory is
`submitted without prejudice to, and without in any respect waiving, any General
`Objections not expressly set forth in that specific response. Accordingly, the
`inclusion of any specific objection in a response to an interrogatory below is neither
`intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to be, a waiver of any General
`Objections or of any other specific objection made herein or that may be asserted at a
`later date. In addition, the failure to include at this time any continuing or specific
`objection to an interrogatory is neither intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to
`be, a waiver of Boston Scientific’s right to assert that or any other objection at a later
`date.
`
`- 1 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`

`No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein. Any
`response and/or objections to a particular interrogatory shall not be taken as an
`admission that Boston Scientific accepts or admits the existence of any “fact” set
`forth in or assumed by that request.
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`Boston Scientific makes the following General Objections to Edwards’s First
`Set of Interrogatories, including without limitation the instructions and definitions
`set forth therein, whether or not separately set forth in each response to each
`individual interrogatory:
`1.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek
`information protected by any relevant privilege or legal protection, including, without
`limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense
`privilege, the settlement or settlement negotiation privilege, settlement materials, or
`trial preparation materials. Any statement herein to the effect that Boston Scientific
`will provide information in response to an interrogatory is limited to information that
`does not fall within the scope of any relevant privilege.
`2.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they are
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, or seek information that is not relevant to any
`party’s claim or defense or not proportional to the needs of the case.
`3.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they are
`vague, ambiguous, and use unlimited, undefined, subjective, or open-ended terms or
`phrases.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek
`4.
`purely legal conclusions.
`5.
`Boston Scientific objects to the interrogatories to the extent that the
`purported benefit of the discovery sought by the interrogatories is outweighed by the
`burden and expense of responding to the interrogatories pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) and
`26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Boston Scientific objects to the
`- 2 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`

`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects that
`the term “activities” as used in this interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and/or overly
`broad to the extent it is not limited to the accused products set forth in response to
`Interrogatory No. 1 above. Boston Scientific further objects to this integratory as
`overly broad, burdensome, and disproportional to the needs of the case to the extent it
`seeks “each person at Boston Scientific who first became aware of such activities.”
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Boston Scientific
`responds as follows. Boston Scientific became aware of Commander Delivery
`System, Ascendra+ Delivery System, Certitude Delivery System, NovaFlex+
`Delivery System, RetroFlex 3 Delivery System, Edwards Crimper no later than the
`presuit investigation Boston Scientific undertook in connection with its April 19,
`2016 Complaint (D.I. 1) and no later than August 4, 2016 for the early versions of
`these products.
`Boston Scientific continues to investigate the information sought by this
`interrogatory and reserves the right to supplement its response in accordance with the
`Federal Rules as additional information becomes available.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify and describe in detail the origin of the prior
`art “cam actuated stent crimper” shown in Figure 1 and described in col.1, line 62
`through col.2, line 21 of the ’560 patent, including an identification of any products,
`devices, things, patents, printed publications, or other documents that embody or
`otherwise relate to the prior art “cam actuated stent crimper,” and identify the
`person(s) most knowledgeable thereof. In identifying any products, devices or things
`responsive to this interrogatory, please include if known the name, model number and
`manufacturer of the product, device or thing, whether or not it was sold
`commercially.
`
`- 22 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`Boston Scientific objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
`applicable privilege or immunity. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts. Boston Scientific further objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any party’s claim or
`defense or not proportional to the needs of the case.
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Boston Scientific
`responds as follows. Boston Scientific believes that the “cam actuated stent crimper”
`shown in Figure 1 and described in col.1, line 62 through col.2, line 21 of the ’560
`patent is a device, also referred to as the “STAR crimper,” which was developed by
`Boston Scientific and constructed in Boston Scientific’s Galway, Ireland facility.
`The person most knowledgeable about the device is Jan Weber, a Senior Research
`Fellow at Boston Scientific based in the Netherlands.
`
`- 23 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`Dated: August 4, 2016
`
`By: /s/ Wallace Wu
`Wallace Wu (State Bar No. 220110)
`wallace.wu@aporter.com
`Marty Koresawa (State Bar No. 291967)
`marty.koresawa@aporter.com
`Allen Secretov (State Bar No. 301655)
`allen.secretov@aporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel.: (213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`
`Matthew Wolf (pro hac vice)
`matthew.wolf@aporter.com
`Edward Han (pro hac vice)
`ed.han@aporter.com
`John Nilsson (pro hac vice)
`john.nilsson@aporter.com
`Marc Cohn (pro hac vice)
`marc.cohn@aporter.com
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 942-5000
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`- 24 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`PROOF OF SERVICE
`I, John Fitzpatrick, declare:
`I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and
`not a party to the within-entitled action; my business address is 777 S. Figueroa
`Street, 44th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017. On August 4, 2016, I served the following
`document(s) described as:
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION’S AND BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
`SCIMED, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO EDWARDS’S FIRST
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1-12
` by transmitting via email the document(s) listed above to the email
`address(es) set forth below:
`John B. Sganga, Jr.
`Craig S. Summers
`Christy G. Lea
`Joshua Stowell
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON &
`BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`(949) 760-0404
`Email: john.sganga@knobbe.com
`Email: craig.summers@knobbe.com
`Email: christy.lea@knobbe.com
`Email: joshua.stowell@knobbe.com
`
`Brian C. Horne
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON &
`BEAR, LLP
`10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 1600
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: 310-551-3450
`Email: brian.horne@knobbe.com
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
`the foregoing is true and correct.
`Executed at Los Angeles, California on August 4, 2016.
`
`/s/ John Fitzpatrick
`John Fitzpatrick
`
`- 25 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`